[HN Gopher] ChatGPT for Teams
___________________________________________________________________
ChatGPT for Teams
Author : szermer
Score : 416 points
Date : 2024-01-10 19:08 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (openai.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (openai.com)
| alvis wrote:
| I think team is a good add to strength the product vision. I just
| hope it can connect to Notion so that we don't need to re import
| all the data
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Announcement post: https://openai.com/blog/introducing-chatgpt-
| team
| hereme888 wrote:
| 100 messages / 3 hrs, with a 32k context window. That's really
| cost effective and efficient for my use case!
|
| Does anyone know if this applies to voice conversations? This is
| me while I'm driving: upload big PDF -> talk to GPT: "Ok, read to
| me the study/book/article word for word."
|
| Good job OpenAI.
| TotoHorner wrote:
| > 100 messages / 3 hrs
|
| Sorry where do you see that? I only see "higher usage limits"?
| hereme888 wrote:
| https://help.openai.com/en/articles/8801707-what-is-the-
| mess...
|
| That article doesn't say 100.
|
| 100 is what I read in the openai forums earlier today.
| jarcoal wrote:
| I'm confused -- wasn't ChatGPT upgraded to 128k tokens at their
| last release? Or was that just the API?
| tedsanders wrote:
| Just the API.
| codingdave wrote:
| Why would you need AI to read a document word-for-word. That
| can be done already in various tools without needing to go
| through ChatGPT?
| gumballindie wrote:
| The sooner we build a tool to filter out chatgpt generated
| garbage the better.
| conception wrote:
| We can't filter out human generated garbage. Not sure how AI
| will be easier.
| jes5199 wrote:
| maybe we can ask the AI to filter it
| riwsky wrote:
| dangGPT
| aleph_minus_one wrote:
| > The sooner we build a tool to filter out chatgpt generated
| garbage the better.
|
| The sooner we build a tool to filter out garbage the better.
|
| FTFY
| asicsarecool wrote:
| Maybe we extend UTF so characters can have an AI generated
| flag.
|
| People could work around it but it might help
| reallymental wrote:
| Ok, so there are now 2 tiers where they don't use our data to
| train the model?
|
| The higher bandwidth is to clearly entice new customers, but the
| question remains, what happens to the old ChatGPT Plus users? Do
| their quotas get eaten up by these new teams?
| yawnxyz wrote:
| Looks like the $20/month PLUS plan DOES use your data to train
| the model now... (they seem to have removed that "feature" from
| the list in the side-by-side comparison)
| Metricon wrote:
| Currently, if you disable chat history, you'll see this
| message:
|
| Chat History is off for this browser. When history is turned
| off, new chats on this browser won't appear in your history
| on any of your devices, be used to train our models, or
| stored for longer than 30 days. This setting does not sync
| across browsers or devices.
| abid786 wrote:
| It's absolutely insane to trust that they won't do this.
| tempestn wrote:
| No it's not. If they explicitly say they won't train on
| your data and then they do, it's going to come out in
| discovery of one of the lawsuits they're fighting, and
| the consequences would be significant. Plus there's
| little incentive for them to lie about it, given most
| people leave history on.
| risho wrote:
| yeah because no large tech company has ever lied to their
| customers about how their data is being handled. oh wait
| there are lawsuits surrounding this sort of thing all the
| time.
| tempestn wrote:
| I wouldn't trust them with nuclear secrets, but to say
| it's "insane" to trust that they're going to do what they
| explicitly say they're going to do just isn't logical.
| knosh wrote:
| https://privacy.openai.com/policies
|
| They hide this link a bit. They completed my opt-out
| request in about ten minutes and at least claim to be not
| using any of my data going forward for training.
|
| I didn't lose any features like Chat History
| tempestn wrote:
| There used to be a form you could submit asking them not to
| train on your data. Absent some communication to the contrary
| I would hope that continues to be respected.
| obmelvin wrote:
| AFAIK, Plus has always trained on your conversation data.
| Enterprise and the API do not.
| castles wrote:
| It's not super obvious, but even with Plus you can opt-out of
| training.
|
| Aside: If you can see other colleagues' interactions with the
| custom/private GPTs, it could be quite an efficient way to
| share knowledge, especially for people in disparate time zones.
| reaperman wrote:
| > what happens to the old ChatGPT Plus users? Do their quotas
| get eaten up by these new teams?
|
| This is probably run on Microsoft servers (Azure, basically),
| not OpenAI servers, so it shouldn't directly compete for
| capacity. This is more of a "the pie got bigger" situation.
| thinkmassive wrote:
| Pricing:
|
| $25 per user/month billed annually
|
| $30 per user/month billed monthly
| ed_mercer wrote:
| Why would they make it more expensive than individual plans?
| CaveTech wrote:
| ENTERPRISE baby. Business tiers are almost universally more
| expensive than individual tiers.
| ukuina wrote:
| The delta is the price for disallowing training on chats
| while retaining all functionality of the web interface and
| app (e.g., Voice chat).
| dataking wrote:
| no training on the data; more requests per hour.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| I bet they will prioritize this traffic as well.
| transcriptase wrote:
| It's marked up so they can offer a "special" discount on the
| sales call, and the customer can report back to their
| superiors that they "negotiated" a better deal and saved
| their company $X.
| phantomathkg wrote:
| 1 point by phantomathkg 0 minutes ago | parent | next | edit
| | delete [-]
|
| https://openai.com/chatgpt/pricing It is very clear on the
| highlight.
|
| * Higher message cap. * Create and Share GPTs within
| workspace. * Admin console. * No training.
| victor9000 wrote:
| meh
| minimaxir wrote:
| A notable feature here is "no training on your business data or
| conversations" which really shouldn't have to be a feature.
| (requests using the ChatGPT API already aren't trained upon)
| andrewstuart2 wrote:
| This is ChatGPT, not OpenAI's API with the gpt4 models. This is
| allowing your team to use chat.openai.com together, rather than
| having to build or deploy your own with the API.
| ashu1461 wrote:
| Yes but even in ChatGPT the training is not done ?
| sjwhevvvvvsj wrote:
| Be default they train on user data and cripple the product
| in various ways if you opt out.
| alwa wrote:
| For some time I thought the primary way to opt out was to
| disable chat history. That made it impossible to use
| custom instructions. But I later found the account-level
| opt-out request, which, assuming they respect the weakly-
| worded "ask us not to train on your data" language,
| preserves the product's full set of features:
|
| https://privacy.openai.com/policies
| Roark66 wrote:
| There is literally nothing on that page (nor in the
| linked help article that describes how to export data)
| that says how to tell them to "not use my data for
| training" and not loose history at the least. If you know
| more about this feature please do tell.
| sjwhevvvvvsj wrote:
| I also breaks the speak to chat in the app if you turn
| history off.
| swores wrote:
| > ' _There is literally nothing on that page that says
| how to tell them to "not use my data for training"..._'
|
| You can opt out of ChatGPT using your conversations for
| future training, without disabling any features like
| convo history.
|
| Either some browser plug-in like an adblock is hiding the
| button from you, or you're not noticing and clicking it
| (I'm guessing the former [1]).
|
| For me, on iPhone, there's a black button with white text
| "Make a Privacy Request" which sort of hovers bottom
| centre of the page the way "Chat Live with Support!"
| buttons often hover.
|
| Click on that button to get to this -
| https://privacy.openai.com/policies?modal=take-control -
| which allows you to either delete your account, or:
|
| " _I would like to: Step 1 of 2 Do not train on my
| content Ask us to stop training on your content_ "
|
| They then tell you it applies to content going forward,
| not stuff already done. But that's the opt out that
| doesn't require losing ChatGPT conversation history.
|
| [1] On iOS Safari with 1Blocker enabled, I could see the
| button without it being hidden as an annoyance or widget
| or whatever, however when I tried entering email for
| opting out to check it still works it gave me an error
| message that suggested adblock type things might be the
| issue. I opened the page in Firefox for iOS (so same
| browser engine as Safari, but without 1Block) and it
| worked with no error message.
| sumedh wrote:
| Never knew about this link, I have requested not to train
| on my data but can we even confirm if they will honor it?
| swores wrote:
| In addition to the usual risk any company has with
| breaking the law that a whistleblower might be brave and
| speak up, it could also come out in discovery during a
| court case, of which there are likely to be quite a few
| brought against them regarding what data they train on.
|
| The benefit of training on data of people they've
| explicitly agreed not to train on (which is probably a
| very small % of even paying users yet alone free ones) is
| unlikely to be worth the risks. They'd be more likely
| just to not offer the opt-out agreement option.
|
| But ultimately, we often can't know if people or
| companies will or won't honour agreements, just like when
| we share a scam of a passport with a bank we can't be
| sure they aren't passing that scan onto an identity-theft
| crime ring. Or course, reputation matters, and while
| banks often have a shit reputation they generally don't
| have a reputation for doing that sort of thing.
|
| OpenAI have been building up a bit of a shit reputation
| among many people, and have even got a reputation for
| training on data that other people don't believe they
| should have the right to train on, so that won't help get
| people to trust them (as demonstrated by you asking the
| question), but personally I still think they're not
| likely to cross the line of training on data they've
| explicitly agreed with a customer not to use.
| pests wrote:
| ?
|
| Roark66 gave a better answer, but...
|
| On desktop I clicked the link and immediately saw "Make A
| Privacy Request" top right (where login / account / menu
| buttons might be)
|
| I must ask did you honestly just miss this UI element or
| do you think it might be some confirmation bias that you
| already had?
| sjwhevvvvvsj wrote:
| For some reason "Confidentiality Tax for Small Business" has
| less of a ring to it than "Teams".
| alwa wrote:
| Similarly you can opt your individual account out on the
| ChatGPT side. [0] Although by default they do seem to use both
| vanilla and Plus conversations for training.
|
| [0] https://privacy.openai.com/policies
| MacsHeadroom wrote:
| If you opt out you lose access to basically every feature
| you're paying for. No conversation history, no access to
| plugins, etc.
| tmerse wrote:
| Are you sure about that? Parent was not referring to the
| "APP -> Data controls -> Chat History & Training" Radio
| Button which would delete your history older than 30 days,
| but rather to a specific form you can use to opt out.
|
| Coincidentally I just used this form yesterday and got the
| confirmation about opting out.
| creesch wrote:
| Edit: This was previously a comment where I said I
| thought it did no longer show history. As it turns out
| the website version of chatGPT is just having a ton of
| issues. So it is very slow to load and when it does
| finally seems to load the sidebar doesn't show any
| content. After refreshing a few times the sidebar does
| show up.
|
| So if people are going through the steps now they might
| indeed think that they no longer have access to advanced
| features.
| ParetoOptimal wrote:
| Does anyone really trust openai isn't training on their data
| given their views on copyright?
|
| It would make more sense for them to just train on it anyway.
| dvngnt_ wrote:
| if there EULA says one thing and they do another that opens
| them up to huge liabilities. though anything is possible
| ParetoOptimal wrote:
| Well "huge liabilities"... until recently I haven't seen
| anything resembling something a company wouldn't just say
| "pay the fine and do it anyway, it'll be better for our
| bottom line".
| phh wrote:
| My personal guess is that they don't put it in training data,
| BUT they still have human read what you send, to see 1. what
| are the innovative uses that they can try to copy/integrate;
| 2. optimize (both in score and throughput) for their
| consumer's usage.
| ttul wrote:
| I don't agree with you here. OpenAI should be free to train on
| your data assuming you agreed to that in the terms of service
| (and yes, you did). If they ask for a little more money in
| exchange for not having that valuable information in trade,
| that seems fair.
|
| If you want an entirely free and open LLM experience, you can
| also run one of the ever-improving open source models on your
| own hardware. But for many if not most companies, paying $25/mo
| per user for something as amazing as ChatGPT-4 is a bargain.
| unshavedyak wrote:
| > I don't agree with you here. OpenAI should be free to train
| on your data assuming you agreed to that in the terms of
| service (and yes, you did). If they ask for a little more
| money in exchange for not having that valuable information in
| trade, that seems fair.
|
| Yea, another way to word it would be to imagine that they
| _only_ had a more expensive "no train" option. Now ask if it
| would be okay to offer a lower priced but yes-train version.
| johnfn wrote:
| Google trains on all your searches. Why is OpenAI held to a
| higher standard?
| dmonitor wrote:
| OpenAI's product might just print out the info you put in
| verbatim to another user if asked politely
| laborcontract wrote:
| At the end of the day I wonder what openai's endgame is here.
| They're starting to expand their business in a way that
| geometrically grows the size of the team, overlapping products
| that microsoft is offering, making the whole non-profit/capped-
| profit thing a head scratcher.
|
| I guess you can argue this is just a marginal add-on to their
| existing ChatGPT product but I can imagine seeing them go full
| Salesforce/Oracle/enterprise behemoth here.
|
| I would say I'm very pro AI development and pro Sam reinstating
| but I've been starting to shake my head a bit. Their mission and
| their ambition are _wildly different_.
| martinky24 wrote:
| It's pretty obvious that once they realized how much money was
| on the table, the "non-profit" aspirations and goals went out
| the window. The Altman saga from a few months ago painted this
| clearly.
| engineer_22 wrote:
| How much money is on the table?
| projectileboy wrote:
| GDP bigger than that of the web.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| I would assume the endgame is like Microsoft: to become an OS
| for your org. Knowledge management, human augmentation (code,
| emails, copilot all the things), data analytics, workflow
| automations, etc.
|
| The mission changed when research ran into product market fit.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| This is a way to create moat, you think Zoom can survive open
| source with just bland features serving moms and pops? That's
| how you get them to stay out of open source
| waynesonfire wrote:
| I kinda see it differently. There are these incredible use-
| cases for what they can do with this technology but still
| requires massive R&D and politics. They're taking the path of
| least resistance with these features. They should spin off R&D
| and let another division handle this low-hanging fruit garbage.
| But, maybe this is just how a business cycle works. You get a
| bite and you milk it for what it's worth and let the next
| generation organization take it to the next level.
| wilg wrote:
| > At the end of the day I wonder what openai's endgame is here
|
| Sell AI products to fund making AI
| ChatGTP wrote:
| At some point I think there is a conflict though, the more
| powerful the AI models, the more risk there is to their own
| business.
| drdaeman wrote:
| Not if they move fast and build that moat to maintain their
| castle as the only provider of highest-quality models'
| services.
| bix6 wrote:
| "No training on your business data or conversations"
|
| Does this mean they will still use your data for other non-
| training purposes?
| hanspeter wrote:
| Yes. They will use your data as input to the GPT model to
| deliver the reponse you have requested.
| bix6 wrote:
| Appreciate the funny response but that is obviously not the
| intention of my question
| thinkingemote wrote:
| maybe we will see "only human eyes can see your data" vs "no
| automated tools can see your data" in the future
| mbesto wrote:
| I mean, how else can you actually get a result without using
| your actual data...?
| brcmthrowaway wrote:
| Typical VC filler, this is a sad day for Open AI (space emphasis)
| npv789 wrote:
| meh, openai is dead. just use https://www.forefront.ai/ or
| chatbotui.com with mixtral, invite team, done
| ta988 wrote:
| Mixtral is nowhere near gpt4. Forefront uses OpenAI or
| Anthropic (whose models aren't fantastic either).
| ehPReth wrote:
| don't even get the option to force SSO unless you "contact sales"
| for the enterprise tier from what I can see :/
| ta988 wrote:
| A major change is that you cannot opt out from having your
| conversations used for training unless you are usig a team
| account which is pretty costly for a single person.
| ec109685 wrote:
| This link lets individuals opt out:
| https://privacy.openai.com/policies
| tedsanders wrote:
| According to this, you can still opt out of training, but you
| have to turn off history:
| https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7730893-data-controls-fa...
| emsign wrote:
| Sneaky buggers
| OJFord wrote:
| That's been true for at least a month, not new with (though
| it may have been in anticipation of) teams support.
| ashu1461 wrote:
| I can see some good use cases - A custom gpt just trained on your
| code base can help you write test cases in your desired syntax. -
| A custom gpt trained on internal PRDs can help brainstorm better
| on the next set of features.
|
| Hoping to see something good come out of this
| ankit219 wrote:
| This version of teams does not do that. You can hook it up by
| creating Custom GPTs and add some amount of docs to a specific
| GPT for retrieval, but you cannot connect an entire codebase to
| ChatGPT to get answers. Github[1] had introduced the feature
| you are talking about a year or so ago. Not sure if people are
| using it.
|
| Use cases I see are common ones - basic usage of ChatGPT but
| admin can control access. Provides ability for companies to
| bill directly instead of reimbursements, and have more control
| over it. HR docs and policies can be a separate GPT. Though
| nothing which requires multi level access control.
|
| [1]: https://githubnext.com/projects/copilot-view/
| ashu1461 wrote:
| Github's feature is under private beta right now. I feel that
| it will be impactful.
|
| UI components can be generated as per your UI guidelines,
| same for tests. Hoping for good things
| ashot wrote:
| no collaboration though, for actual collaborative team spaces
| give vello.ai a try
| kannangce wrote:
| I thought teams would be cheaper than individual.
| anonylizard wrote:
| Have you ever seen an enterprise plan cheaper than the
| individual plans (Which are often free)?
|
| Now normal software is priced to squeeze as much money as you
| can, enterprises can afford more, so are charged more.
| Individuals are highly price sensitive, so has to be very
| cheap.
|
| GenAI is quite different in that its not 0 marginal cost, the
| marginal costs are probably at least 50% of the price. So the
| price difference between enterprise and individual plans will
| be far smaller than usual, due to the common cost base.
| callalex wrote:
| No, per-seat cost for these kinds of things is ALWAYS cheaper
| than retail. However it does require you to set up a meeting
| with a sales rep who will then work tirelessly to expand the
| number of services you use and require longer commitments
| etc. With "enterprise" pricing, the sticker price is just the
| opening number in a negotiation, and basic theory tells us
| that the opening number must be large since it sets a
| ceiling.
| The_Colonel wrote:
| There are many products which cater to both individual users
| and enterprises, and these will often charge individual users
| more.
|
| WinRAR is 30 EUR per user when buying a single license, 9 EUR
| when buying 100 licenses.
| benreesman wrote:
| I've got my stuff rigged to hit mixtral-8x7, and dolphin locally,
| and 3.5-turbo, and the 4-series preview all with easy comparison
| in emacs and stuff, and in fairness the 4.5-preview is starting
| to show some edge on 8x7 that had been a toss-up even two weeks
| ago. I'm still on the mistral-medium waiting list.
|
| Until I realized Perplexity will give you a decent amount of
| Mistral Medium for free through their partnership.
|
| Who is sama kidding they're still leading here? Mistral Medium
| _destroys_ the 4.5 preview. And Perplexity wouldn't be giving it
| away in any quantity if it had a cost structure like 4.5, Mistral
| hasn't raised enough.
|
| Speculation is risky but fuck it: Mistral is the new "RenTech of
| AI", DPO and Alibi and sliding window and modern mixtures are
| well-understood so the money is in the lag between some new edge
| and TheBloke having it quantized for a Mac Mini or 4070 Super,
| and the enterprise didn't love the weird structure, remembers how
| much fun it was to be over a barrel to MSFT, and can afford to
| dabble until it's affordable and operable on-premise.
|
| "Hate to see you go, love to watch you leave".
| icelancer wrote:
| > Mistral Medium destroys the 4.5 preview.
|
| On what metrics? LMSys shows it does well but 4-Turbo is still
| leading the field by a wide margin.
|
| I am using 8x-7b internally for a lot of things and Mistral-7b
| fine-tunes for other specific applications. They're both
| excellent. But neither can touch GPT-4-turbo (preview) for
| wide-ranging needs or the strongest reasoning requirements.
|
| https://huggingface.co/spaces/lmsys/chatbot-arena-leaderboar...
|
| EDIT: Neither does mistral-medium, which I didn't discuss, but
| is in the leaderboard link.
| benreesman wrote:
| Keep in mind that modern quantitative approaches to LLM
| evaluation have been effectively co-designed with the rise of
| OpenAI, and folks like Ravenwolf routinely disagree with the
| leaderboards.
|
| There's also very little if any credible literature on what
| constitutes statistically significant on MMLU or whatever.
| There's such a massive vested interest from so many parties
| (the YC ecosystem is invested in Sam, MSFT is invested in
| OpenAI, the US is invested in not-France, a bunch of
| academics are invested in GPT-is-borderline-AGI, Yud is
| either a Time Magazine cover author or a Harry Potter fanfic
| guy, etc.) in seeing GPT-4.5 at the top of those rankings and
| taking the bold one at < 10% lift as state of the art that I
| think everyone should just use a bunch of them and optimize
| per use case.
|
| I have my own biases as well and freely admit that I love to
| see OpenAI stumble (no I didn't apply to work there, yes I
| know knuckleheads who go on about the fact they do).
|
| And once you factor in "mixtral is aligned to the demands of
| the user and GPT balks at using profanity while happily
| taking sides on things Ilya has double-spoken on", even e.g.
| MMLU is nowhere near the whole picture.
|
| It's easy and cheap to just try both these days, don't take
| my word for which one is better.
| icelancer wrote:
| > It's easy and cheap to just try both these days, don't
| take my word for which one is better.
|
| I literally use 8x-7b on my on-prem GPU cluster and have
| several fine tunes of 7b (which I said in the previous
| post). I've used mistral-medium.
|
| GPT-4-turbo is better than them all on all benchmarks,
| human preference, and anything that isn't biased vibes. My
| opinion - such that it is - is that GPT-4-turbo is by far
| the best.
|
| I have no vested interest in it being the best. I'd
| actually prefer if it wasn't. But all objective data points
| to it being the best and most lived experiences that are
| unbiased agree (assuming broad model use and not
| hyperfocused fine-tunes; I have Mistral-7b fine-tunes
| beating 4-turbo in very limited domains, but that hardly
| counts).
|
| The rest of your post I really have no idea what's going
| on, so good luck with all that I guess.
| MacsHeadroom wrote:
| Mistral Medium beats 4.5 on the censorship benchmark. It
| doesn't refuse to help with anything that could be
| vaguely non-PC or could potentially be used to hurt
| anyone in the wrong hands, including dangerously hot
| salsa recipes.
| wokwokwok wrote:
| That's not a metric.
|
| That's a use case.
|
| Certainly, no one here is arguing that there are things
| openai refuses to allow, and given that the effectiveness
| of using GPT4 on them is _literally zero_ , a sweet
| potato connected to a spring and keyboard will "beat"
| GPT-4, if that's your scoring metric.
|
| If you want a meaningful comparison you need tasks that
| _both tools are capable of doing_ , and then see how
| effective they are.
|
| Claiming that mistral medium beats it is like me claiming
| the RenderMan beats DALLE2 at rendering 3d models; yes,
| technically they both generate images, but since it's not
| possible to use DALLE2 to render a 3d model, it's not
| really a meaningful comparison is it?
| theshackleford wrote:
| > If you want a meaningful comparison you need tasks that
| both tools are capable of doing, and then see how
| effective they are.
|
| The fact it's incapable of simple requests that an
| alternative can is absolutely part of a worthwhile
| comparison.
| bambax wrote:
| Semantics.
|
| Both tools are generative systems that produce text in
| response to a prompt. If Mistral was mute on random
| topics for no other reason that its makers dislike
| talking about that, would you say it doesn't count?
| benreesman wrote:
| I'm a big proponent of freedom in this space (and remain
| one), but Dolphin is fucking scary.
|
| I don't have any use cases for crime in my life at the
| moment beyond wanting to pirate like Adobe Illustrator
| before signing up for an uncancelable subscription, but
| it will do arbitrary things within it's abilities and
| it's google with a grudge in terms of how to do anything
| you ask. I stopped wanting to know when it convinced me
| it could explain how to stage a coup d'etat. I'm back on
| mixtral-8x7b.
| dbuxton wrote:
| Agree with this. I would say that the rate of progress
| from Mistral is very encouraging though in terms of
| having multiple plausible contenders for the crown.
| epups wrote:
| > Keep in mind that modern quantitative approaches to LLM
| evaluation have been effectively co-designed with the rise
| of OpenAI, and folks like Ravenwolf routinely disagree with
| the leaderboards.
|
| Sorry but you're talking complete nonsense here. The
| benchmark by LMSys (chatbot arena) cannot be gamed, and
| Ravenwolf is a random-ass poster with no scientific rigor
| to his benchmarks.
| ParetoOptimal wrote:
| Cannot be gamed? C'mon now... You could pay a bunch of
| people to vote for your model in the arena.
| epups wrote:
| No you can't, because you actually don't know which model
| is which when you vote.
| ParetoOptimal wrote:
| Do only the initial votes count? Because after I made an
| initial choice I was then put in a session where I saw
| the name of both of the AI. I made subsequent votes in
| that session where I could see their names.
| epups wrote:
| https://github.com/lm-sys/FastChat/issues/1210
| leo150 wrote:
| It just feels like "what LLM is better" becomes new "what GPU
| is better" type of talk. It's great to find a clear winner,
| but at the end the gap between the leaders isn't an order of
| magnitude.
| speedgoose wrote:
| These days the question is more about which LLM is second
| best. It's very tight while ChatGPT 4 is in its own league.
| seydor wrote:
| I think people are missing the context that the prices of
| even the largest LLMs trend towards $0 in the medium term.
| Mistral-medium is almost open source, and we are still
| early days
| hermiod wrote:
| Any chance you could post some comparisons between Mistral
| medium and gpt-4 turbo? I'm curious where you think it's more
| impressive, I hadn't spent the time to evaluate it yet.
| icelancer wrote:
| Go to the Arena (side-by-side) tab on LMsys and you can try
| it yourself!
|
| https://chat.lmsys.org/
|
| It's a great tool they make available.
| pyinstallwoes wrote:
| Can you share some examples of how you are using it? Mixtral
| that is? What's your setup? What's your flow/workflow?
| benreesman wrote:
| I screenshotted my emacs session upthread in a bit of a
| cheeky "AI-talking-about-AI" joke: https://imgur.com/WDrqxsz.
|
| While I heavily rely on `emacs` as my primary interface to
| all this stuff, I'm slowly-but-surely working on a curated
| and opinionated collection of bindings and tools and themes
| and shit for all the major hacker tools (VSCode, `nvim`, even
| to a degree the JetBrains ecosystem). This is all broadly
| part of a project I'm calling `hyper-modern` which will be
| MIT if I get to a release candidate at all.
|
| I have a `gRPC` service that wraps the outstanding work by
| the "`ggeranov` crew" loosely patterned on the sharded model-
| server architectures we used at FB/IG and mercilessly
| exploiting the really generous free-plan offered by the
| `buf.build` people (seriously, check out the `buf.build`
| people) in an effort to give hackers the best tools in a
| truly modern workflow.
|
| It's also an opportunity to surface some of the outstanding
| models that seem to have sunk without a trace (top of mind
| would be Segment Anything out of Meta and StyleTTS which
| obsoletes a bunch of well-funded companies) in a curated
| collection of hacker-oriented capabilities that aren't clumsy
| bullshit like co-pilot.
|
| Right now it's a name and a few thousand lines of code too
| rough to publish, but if I get it to a credible state the
| domain is `https://hyper-modern.ai` and the code will be MIT
| at `https://github.com/hyper-modern-ai/`.
| rightbyte wrote:
| Feel free to push the code. Elisp should be hacky and
| embarrassing otherwise you are doing it wrong :)
| Demiurge wrote:
| I have 20 years of software development experience, and I
| couldn't understand anything you said. Is there a dictionary
| for this new lingo, or am I just too mid?
| walteweiss wrote:
| Oh thank you, I was reading and none of that made any sense
| to me. I thought it could be a presentation of some dumb AI
| output. Now I see I'm not alone.
| Demiurge wrote:
| That gave me an idea, here is what I got from Copilot:
|
| You have set up your system to run different AI models and
| compare their performance using a text editor. You are
| using Mixtral-8x7, a high-quality open-source model
| developed by Mistral AI, Dolphin, an emulator for Nintendo
| video games, 3.5-Turbo, a customized version of GPT-3.5, a
| powerful natural language model, and 4-Series Preview, a
| new version of the BMW sports coupe. You have noticed that
| the 4.5-Preview, an upcoming update of GPT-3.5, is slightly
| better than Mixtral-8x7, which used to be a close match.
| You are still waiting to access Mistral-Medium, a prototype
| model that is even better than Mixtral-8x7, but only
| available to a limited number of users.
|
| You have discovered that Perplexity, an AI company that
| provides information discovery and sharing services, offers
| free access to Mistral-Medium through their partnership
| with Mistral AI. You think that Perplexity is making a
| mistake by giving away such a valuable model, and that they
| are underestimating the superiority of Mistral-Medium over
| the 4.5-Preview. You also think that Mistral AI is the new
| leader in the AI industry, and that their techniques, such
| as DPO (Data Processing Optimization), Alibi (a library for
| algorithmic accountability), sliding window (a method for
| analyzing time series data), and modern mixtures (a way of
| combining different models), are well-known and effective.
| You believe that the advantage of Mistral AI lies in the
| gap between their innovation and the ability of other
| developers to replicate it on cheaper and more accessible
| hardware. You also think that the enterprise market is not
| fond of the complex structure of GPT-3.5 and its variants,
| and that they prefer to use Mistral AI's models, which are
| more affordable and operable on their own premises.
|
| You end your text with a quote from the movie Armageddon,
| which implies that you are leaving a situation that you
| dislike, but also admire.
| starfallg wrote:
| I lost it when it brought in the BMW. Thanks for the
| laughs.
| MeImCounting wrote:
| I dont think it has anything to do with a BMW sports
| coupe.
|
| What I am confused about though is it seems like the
| parent is mentioning models beyond the GPT4 instance I
| currently have access to. I checked their twitter and I
| have seen no anouncement for any 4.5 or 4 series
| previews. Is this just available to people using the API
| or did I miss something?
| danielbln wrote:
| OP might be referring to gpt-4-turbo.
| benreesman wrote:
| The OpenAI API is currently advertising their preview to
| my clients as `gpt-4-1106-preview`. I've been calling the
| Q4 2023 4-series stuff `4.5` or `4.5-preview` to
| distinguish it from the pre-big-announcement stuff.
|
| I don't recall if I saw any press calling anything `4.5`,
| but it's a different model in some important ways (one
| suspects better/cheaper quantization at a minimum) and
| since they've used `.5` for point releases in the past it
| seemed the most consistent with their historical
| versioning.
| pmontra wrote:
| > I dont think it has anything to do with a BMW sports
| coupe
|
| Well, the Paul Ricard circuit in France has a straight
| called Mistral. Plenty of BMWs have been there for sure,
| and a zillion other cars.
|
| I wonder if that could have confused the AI a little in
| combination with other hints. Turbo?
|
| If that's a thing maybe we should start picking our names
| not only to make them googlable but also not to confuse
| LLMs at least for the next few years. Months?
| benreesman wrote:
| https://imgur.com/WDrqxsz
| tikej wrote:
| What kind of emacs distribution is on the screenshot?
| benreesman wrote:
| It's a new theme and/or distribution that I'm working on
| under the working title `hyper-modern`. It clearly takes
| inspiration from things like Doom (and I'm using their
| modeline which is hard to improve on) but it's mostly
| ground up and AI-first.
|
| It's heavily integrated with my custom model server and
| stuff and I'm slowly getting it integrated with other
| leading tools (vscode and nvim and stuff).
|
| I plan to MIT it all once it's at a reasonable RC. If I
| get there it will be available at `https://hyper-
| modern.ai` and `https://github.com/hyper-modern-ai`.
|
| Thanks for asking!
| PeterStuer wrote:
| "Dolphin, an emulator for Nintendo video games", but in
| this context it refers to "Dolphin, an open-source and
| uncensored, and commercially licensed dataset and series of
| instruct-tuned language models based on Microsoft's Orca
| paper." https://erichartford.com/dolphin
| appplication wrote:
| Yeah that was completely incoherent to me as well.
| ChatGTP wrote:
| Same bro
| benreesman wrote:
| My apologies to both you and grandparent, I faux-pass'd
| on using such sloppy jargon in a thread of general
| interest. If I can be useful in decoding some of that and
| helping to keep this topic accessible to the broader
| community I'd be happy to answer any questions about what
| I meant. I've cited a few useful resources elsewhere in
| the thread and am always eager to talk shop on topics
| like this, so fire away if you have any questions about
| the field or what the hell I was talking about :)
| scopeh wrote:
| surely this guy is a bot.
| benreesman wrote:
| For a bot/spam thing, 16 years seems like a lot of
| planning and/or effort to put in? I don't know the
| typical age of people on HN these days but I can't
| imagine there are a lot of 2008 joins still floating
| around as a percentage of all commenters.
| ebcode wrote:
| or spending too much time with bots...
| benreesman wrote:
| Now that seems more likely for better or worse :)
| danson wrote:
| A paragraph by paragraph "dumbed down" translation of
| your original words would be pretty neat to have for
| starters. Both to understand what you mean but also to
| understand the lingo.
| benreesman wrote:
| I'm hardly the best person to give a point-by-point on
| how modern neural networks work. The original paper that
| kind of brought together a bunch of ideas that were
| floating around is called "Attention is All You Need" in
| 2017 (and those folks are going to win a Turing almost
| certainly) and built on a bunch of `seq2seq` and Neural
| Turing Machine stuff that was in the ether before that.
|
| Karpathy has a a great YouTube series where he gets into
| the details from `numpy` on up, and George Hotz is live-
| coding the obliteration of PyTorch as the performance
| champion on the more implementation side as we speak.
|
| Altman being kind of a dubious-seeming guy who pretty
| clearly doesn't regard the word "charity" the same way
| the dictionary does is more-or-less common knowledge,
| though not often mentioned by aspiring YC applicants for
| obvious reasons.
|
| Mistral is a French AI company founded by former big
| hitters at e.g. DeepMind that brought the best of the
| best on 2023's public domain developments into one model
| in particular that shattered all expectations of both
| what was realistic with open-weights and what was
| possible without a Bond Villain posture. That model is
| "Mixtral", an 8-way mixture of experts model using a
| whole bag of tricks but key among them are:
|
| - gated mixture of experts in attention models - sliding
| window attention / context - direct-preference
| optimization (probably the big one and probably the one
| OpenAI is struggling to keep up with, probably more
| institutionally than technically as probably a bunch of
| bigshots have a lot of skin in the InstructGPT/RLHF/PPO
| game)
|
| It's common knowledge that GPT-4 and derivatives were
| mixture models but no one had done it blindingly well in
| an open way until recently.
|
| SaaS companies doing "AI as a service" have a big wall in
| front of them called "60%+ of the TAM can't upload their
| data to random-ass cloud providers much less one run by a
| guy recently fired by his own board of directors", and
| for big chunks of finance (SOX, PCI, bunch of stuff),
| medical (HIPAA, others), defense (clearance, others),
| insurance, you get the idea: on-premise is the play for
| "AI stuff".
|
| A scrappy group of hackers too numerous to enumerate but
| exemplified by `ggerganov` and collaborators, `TheBloke`
| and his backers, George Hotz and other TinyGrad
| contributors, and best exemplified in the "enough money
| to fuck with foundation models" sense by Mistral at the
| moment are pulling a Torvalds and making all of this
| free-as-in-I-can-download-and-run-it, and this gets very
| little airtime all things considered because roughly no
| one sees a low-effort path to monetizing it in the
| capital-E enterprise: that involves serious work and very
| low shady factors, which seems an awful lot like hard
| work to your bog-standard SaaS hustler and offers almost
| no mega data-mining opportunity to the somnobulent FAANG
| crowd. So it's kind of a fringe thing in spite of being
| clearly the future.
| bambax wrote:
| What is "Mixtral Medium"? Is it a next version of Mixtral
| and can it be downloaded somewhere?
| tarruda wrote:
| No. Mixtral Medium is one of the proprietary models by
| Mistral AI, and only accessible via their API:
| https://docs.mistral.ai/
|
| It currently ranks 4 in chatbot arena leaderboard
| (slightly behind GTA-4 ELO rating):
| https://huggingface.co/spaces/lmsys/chatbot-arena-
| leaderboar...
| bmikaili wrote:
| They are referring to LLM models. It's not about how much
| software dev experience you have
| Demiurge wrote:
| I have heard of LLMs, and understand most everything posted
| on HN, except quantum computing stuff.
| m12k wrote:
| I think in this case it's much like the difference
| between understanding what Pokemon are, and actively
| playing each game so you know the names of most Pokemon.
| benreesman wrote:
| On reflection this thread is pretty clearly of general
| interest and my comment was more jargon that language, I hang
| out in ML zones too much.
|
| For a broad introduction to the field Karpathy's YouTube
| series is about as good as it gets.
|
| If you've got a pretty solid grasp of attention architectures
| and want a lively overview of stuff that's gone from secret
| to a huge deal recently I like this treatment as a light but
| pretty detailed podcast-type format:
| https://arize.com/blog/mistral-ai
| Demiurge wrote:
| I appreciate it, will check it out :)
| defrost wrote:
| It was entertaining to follow and cross check for sanity -
| admittedly I first read "RenTech" as a reference to
| https://theitcrowd.fandom.com/wiki/Reynholm_Industries
|
| .. which seemed to fit suprisingly well.
| toyg wrote:
| Ironically, one of the best scenes from the series
| (Reynholm trying to wake his desktop by shouting "HELLO
| COMPUTER! HELLO!!" for hours and hours) feels very
| "ai"...
| heggy wrote:
| I'm trying to go deeper, I'd be curious to know what other
| ML zones you keep track of?
|
| - I know r/LocalLlama, huggingface's Daily Papers and
| TheBloke. Most of what Youtube throws at me is horrific
| clickbait. I feel like there are probably whole communities
| I'm missing out on.
| sevagh wrote:
| Half LLM, half boomer
| vincnetas wrote:
| Now you know how your girlfriend feels when she hears you
| speak with other software people :) Excuse my assumptions if
| they are incorrect. I'm making projections from my own point
| of view.
| no-reply wrote:
| Reminds me of something I watched recently - "Struggling to
| understand Gen Z Slang" [0].
|
| [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGx4VtwMnfM
| tomcam wrote:
| Romeo here flexing about how he has an actual girlfriend.
| Sorry, Casanova, we're busy refining mobile-ready inference
| models and leetcoding while you go on your so-called
| "dates"
| benreesman wrote:
| Reddit-inspired humor on HN done right, hat tip, almost
| impossible to do (and I've tried for 15 years with less
| success).
|
| lulz.
| tomcam wrote:
| tbh I expected serious downvotage
| moffkalast wrote:
| We developers only go on ISO 8601 dates, which somewhat
| limits the selection unfortunately.
| kolinko wrote:
| He speaks very unclearly, instead of saying GPT-4-turbo he
| says 4.5 preview. 4.5 is invention of his.
|
| Also mixtral medium - no idea of what he means by that.
|
| Not to mention a claim that mixtral is as good as gpt-4. It's
| on the quality of gpt3.5 at best, which is still amazing for
| an open source model, but a year behind openai
| sa-code wrote:
| Mistral-medium is a model that mistral serves only via API
| since it's a prototype model. It hasn't been released yet
| and it's bigger than the mixtral-8x7b model
| novaRom wrote:
| I think with Mixtral Medium they mean MoE 2x13B which is on
| top on huggingface leaderboard? It is still not close to
| 8x175B, but size alone is not most important factor. With
| smarter training methods and data it is possible we will
| see performance similar to gpt-4 in open source mixture of
| experts of smaller sizes.
| wruza wrote:
| I just spoke all night to 8x7B and can say that it sucks
| _much_ less than 3.5. It doesn't screw up and apologize all
| the time (and screw up again) and doesn't repeat what I
| just said verbatim. That is on topics I have a decent
| expertise in myself. Never had this experience of
| periodically forgetting that it's not a human company with
| 3.5.
| eurekin wrote:
| How are you accessing it?
| gexla wrote:
| You can access it through Poe.com.
| wruza wrote:
| Local setup, "text generation webui",
| TheBloke/Mixtral-8x7B-Instruct-v0.1-GGUF (Q4_K_M) on HF.
| You can run it on a decent intel cpu, takes around 32.5GB
| of ram including os (8gb for me). GPU with tensorcores
| can speed up few layers if you have one, but isn't
| required. I get around 2.5-3 t/s with 8700 and 4070ti,
| that's enough for chats that require some thinking.
|
| Edit: I was using 2k window, a larger one would probably
| eat more ram. But even with 2k it didn't feel like it
| loses context or something.
| lhl wrote:
| For macOS and Linux, Ollama is probably the easiest way
| to try Mixtral (and a large number of models) locally. LM
| Studio is also nice and available for Mac, Windows, and
| Linux.
|
| As these models can be quite large and memory intensive,
| if you want to just give it a quick spin,
| huggingface.co/chat, chat.nbox.ai, and labs.pplx.ai all
| have Mixtral hosted atm.
| coldtea wrote:
| Sorry, but there's little that's unclear about what he
| said.
|
| "mixtral medium" is just a typo: he means mistral-medium.
|
| And GPT 4.5 is certainly not an "invention of his". Whether
| it exists or not (which is debatable, OpenAI said it was
| just mentioned in a GPT 4 hallutination and caught on), it'
| s a version name thrown around for like a month in forums,
| blog posts, news articles and such.
| siva7 wrote:
| Being thrown around in forums doesn't make it more true..
| yreg wrote:
| But it makes it not an invention of benreesman
| coldtea wrote:
| Which is neither here nor there, since I din't claim that
| it is true.
|
| I claimed it's not an "invention of his [benreesman ]",
| but a term that was already out there.
| andersa wrote:
| Just follow https://www.reddit.com/r/localllama to keep up to
| date on this stuff
| Demiurge wrote:
| Thanks!
| swyx wrote:
| "just" is carrying a loooot of weight there fyi. but
| given your 20 years... you should have some appreciation
| of that :)
| ringofchaos wrote:
| Its a specific lingo evolved over last two years with rise of
| llms. Those who have been following development of LLMs would
| understand it.
| transitus wrote:
| We're all too mid. Luckily, these days we hoomans have AIs to
| help us understand other hoomans. Here is Gpt-4-1106-preview
| and Perplexity.ai versions trying to shed some light what was
| being said. https://pastebin.com/JuxfdrLg
|
| Hilariously neither knows who is sama (Sam Altman, the Drama
| King of OpenAI), nor do they recognize when they themselves
| are being discussed.
|
| Reading the responses in full also gives you a glimpse on
| specific merits or weaknesses of these systems, namely how up
| to date is their knowledge and lingo, explaining
| capabilities, and ability to see through multiple layers of
| referencing. Also showcases whether the AIs are willing to
| venture guessing to piece together some possible
| interpretation for hoomans to think about.
| benreesman wrote:
| I absolutely love pointing these things at each other and
| watching them go.
|
| I screen-capped my take on this to prove* that I was
| actually wiring all this stuff up and plug my nascent
| passion/oss project, but it's really funny comparing them
| either way: https://imgur.com/WDrqxsz
| imperialdrive wrote:
| Just had to say that the original comment, and then yours
| right after, is a great combo. Laughed my ass off :)
| benreesman wrote:
| Normally I'm the mid-ass, out of touch old guy, it's a rare
| chance to be the one using the insider lingo :)
| swyx wrote:
| respectfully, 20 yrs of software dev experience doesn't
| entitle you to understand the last 2 months of AI if you
| didn't spend the effort to keep up. jargon happens, its not
| your fault but also people need to communicate thoughts
| concisely given a base of knowledge. its ok to ask of course
| but the rest of us who have been keeping up can parse this
| well enough (even though I disagree with some of the
| assertions)
| benreesman wrote:
| I'm snarkier than most on HN and have the scars to prove
| it, and I do miss the RTFM-by-default vibe of the early
| days, but on this one topic as you can see I'm going out of
| my way to apologize for being cryptic and try to include
| everyone in the conversation because this shit matters a
| lot even by our standards.
|
| Give me a hand?
| swyx wrote:
| i do my part :) i do lots of explaining in audio and text
| https://latent.space/p/dec-2023
|
| am just here to vibe in my down time
| benreesman wrote:
| Glad to make your acquaintance as my folks used to say.
| I'll check out the link and remember the handle.
| karmasimida wrote:
| He is all over the place, mixing tech specifics with unproven
| models.
|
| Basically, he said he is happy with Mistral 8x7B and thinks
| it is on par/better comparing to OpenAI's closed source
| model.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Well the lmsys leaderboard interestingly places it just 10
| Elo under GPT 4 entries, so one would have to consider it
| somewhat on-par.
| rvba wrote:
| Was this generated by some AI? It it a parody?
| benreesman wrote:
| I've made similar apologies upthread but I'm passionate about
| this being an inclusive conversation and so I'm trying to
| respond to everyone who I confused with all the jargon.
|
| The trouble with the jargon is that it obfuscates to a high
| degree even by the standards of the software space, and in a
| field where the impact on people's daily lives is at the high
| end of the range, even by the standards of the software
| space.
|
| HN routinely front-pages stuff where the math and CS involved
| is much less accessible, but for understandable reasons a
| somewhat tone-deaf comment like mine is disproportionately
| disruptive: people know this stuff matters to them either now
| or soon, and it's moving as quickly as anything does, and
| it's graduate-level material.
|
| If you have concrete questions about what probably looks like
| word salad I'll do my best to clarify (without the aid of an
| LLM).
| nopinsight wrote:
| Curious that you mentioned "4.5-preview". What do you mean
| there?
|
| To my knowledge, and I searched to confirm, GPT-4.5 is not yet
| released. There were some rumors and a link to ChatGPT's answer
| about GPT-4.5 (could also be a hallucination) but Sam tweeted
| it was not true.
| callalex wrote:
| They literally made it up.
| benreesman wrote:
| That seems a little harsh. There was clearly what amounted
| to an internal point release in Q4, there was a big
| announcement and the historical convention on versioning is
| `.5` increments.
|
| It's "unofficial" but "literally made it up" seems a bit
| unfair, it's not like I called it `GPT-4-Ti Founders
| Edition` and tried to list it on eBay.
| EmilStenstrom wrote:
| They meant GPT-4 Turbo, which is an improvement over GPT-4.
| dudeinjapan wrote:
| Speculative musings beckon, and we dare to embrace them. The
| crux of the matter appears to be the chasm that separates novel
| advancements from the moment they are quantified for mainstream
| consumption. Retaining vivid memories of past entanglements
| with industry titans, circumspectly explore and exploit these
| innovations until they become both affordable and practicable
| for on-premise utilization, finally unveiling competitive
| prowess. The overarching question looms large. Perhaps, Mistral
| has not yet amassed the financial resources commensurate with
| such largesse.
|
| "My hips don't lie."
| benreesman wrote:
| https://gist.github.com/b7r6/fde6fb3be9a752a989054e62905307f.
| ..
| dudeinjapan wrote:
| Not bad! It's having trouble with syllables tho.
| logicchains wrote:
| >Alibi
|
| Do you have a source on Mistral/Mixtral using that?
| benreesman wrote:
| No, they could be using any of the variants of pointwise
| scalar trig-style embedding, one imagines it's at least a
| little custom to their particular training setup.
|
| It was just an example of a modern positional encoding. I
| regret that I implied inside knowledge about that level of
| detail. They're doing something clever on scalar pointwise
| positional encoding but as for what who knows.
| Prcmaker wrote:
| I'm still waiting for the AI encabulator.
| LeonM wrote:
| Had a good laugh about your comment, then realized that this
| is _exactly_ what AI would be really good at...
|
| Basically let an AI hallucinate on some technical subject. It
| would make a great script for a new encabulator video.
| asenna wrote:
| Dolphin-mixtral is incredible for the size that it is. But I'm
| curious, have you tried Goliath-120b or the new
| `Mixtral_34Bx2_MoE_60B` (it's named Mixtral but the base is
| actually Yi).
|
| Goliath is too big for my system but Mixtral_34Bx2_MoE_60B[1]
| is giving me some really good results.
|
| PSA to anyone that does not understand what we're talkign
| about: I was new to all of this until two weeks ago as well. If
| you want to get up to speed with the incredible innovation and
| home-tinkering happening with LLMs, you have to checkout -
| https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/
|
| I believe we should be at GPT4 levels of intelligence locally
| sometime later this year (Possibly with the release of Llama3
| or Mistral Medium open-model).
|
| [1] -
| https://huggingface.co/TheBloke/Mixtral_34Bx2_MoE_60B-GGUF
| EmilStenstrom wrote:
| Here's a glossary to understand this post:
|
| - mixtral-8x7 or 8x7: Open source model by Mistral AI.
|
| - Dolphin: An uncensored version of the mistral model
|
| - 3.5-turbo: GPT-3.5 Turbo, the cheapest API from OpenAI
|
| - 4-series preview OR "4.5 preview": GPT-4 Turbo, the most
| capable API from OpenAI
|
| - mistral-medium: A new model by Mistral AI that they are only
| serving through AI. It's in private beta and there's a waiting
| list to access it.
|
| - Perplexity: A new search engine that is challenging Google by
| applying LLM to search
|
| - Sama: Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI
|
| - RenTech: Renaissance Technologies, a secretive hedge fund
| known for delivering impressive returns improving on the work
| of others
|
| - DPO: Direct Preference Optimization. It is a technique that
| leverages AI feedback to optimize the performance of smaller,
| open-source models like Zephyr-7B1.
|
| - Alibi: a Python library that provides tools for machine
| learning model inspection and interpretation2. It can be used
| to explain the predictions of any black-box model, including
| LLMs.
|
| - Sliding window: a type of attention mechanism introduced by
| Mistral-7B3. It is used to support longer sequences in LLMs.
|
| - Modern mixtures: The process of using multiple models
| together, like "mixtral" is a mixture of several mistral
| models.
|
| - TheBloke: Open source developer that is very quick at
| quantizing all new models that come out
|
| - Quantize: Decreasing memory requirements of a new model by
| decreasing the precision of weights, typically with just minor
| performance degradation.
|
| - 4070 Super: NVIDIA 4070 Super, new graphics card announced
| just a week ago
|
| - MSFT: Microsoft
| azeirah wrote:
| That's an impressive list of jargon whaha
|
| Love how deep the rabbithole has gone in just a year. I am
| unfortunately in the camp of understanding the post without
| needing a glossary. I should go outside more :|
| rrr_oh_man wrote:
| I love you, Emil
| benreesman wrote:
| I'm clearly spending far too much time tuning/training/using
| these things if a glossary to make my post comprehensible to
| HN is longer than my remark: thank you for correcting my
| error in dragging this sub-sub-sub-field into a thread of
| general interest.
| neals wrote:
| Crazy, your post feels like downloading martial arts in the
| Matrix. I read the parent, didn't get a thing and though the
| guy was on substances. Read yours. Read the parent again. I
| speak AI now! I'm going to use this new power to raise
| billions!
| Smerity wrote:
| I think you've done a great explanation expansion except I
| believe it's ALiBi ("Attention with Linear Biases Enables
| Input Length Extrapolation"), a method of positional encoding
| (i.e. telling the Transformer model how much to weight a
| distant token when computing the current output token). This
| has been used on various other LLMs[2].
|
| [1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.12409
|
| [2]: n.b. Ofir Press is co-creator of ALiBi
| https://twitter.com/OfirPress/status/1654538361447522305
| benreesman wrote:
| This is indeed what I was referring to and along with RoPE
| and related techniques is a sort of "meta-attention" in
| which a cost-effective scalar pointwise calculation can
| hint the heavyweight attention mechanism with super-linear
| returns in practical use cases.
|
| In more intuitive terms, your bog-standard transformer
| overdoes it in terms of considering all context equally in
| the final prediction, and we historically used rather
| blunt-force instruments like causally masking everything to
| zero.
|
| These techniques are still heuristic and I imagine every
| serious shop has tweaks and tricks that go with their
| particular training setup, but the Rope shit in general is
| kind of a happy medium and exploits locality at a much
| cheaper place in the overall computation.
| Kerbonut wrote:
| imo mistral-medium is worse than mixtral. Do you have API
| access?
| lhl wrote:
| My understanding is that Mistral uses a regular 4K RoPE
| that is "extends" the window size with SWA. This is based
| on looking at the results of Nous Research's Yarn-Mistral
| extension: https://huggingface.co/NousResearch/Yarn-
| Mistral-7b-128k and Self-Extend, both of which only apply
| to RoPE models.
|
| There are quite a few recent attention extension
| techniques recently published:
|
| * Activation Beacons - up to 100X context length
| extension in as little as 72 A800 hours
| https://huggingface.co/papers/2401.03462
|
| * Self-Extend - a no-training RoPE modification that can
| give "free" context extension with 100% passkey retrieval
| (works w/ SWA as well)
| https://huggingface.co/papers/2401.01325
|
| * DistAttention/DistKV-LLM - KV cache segmentation for
| 2-19X context length at runtime
| https://huggingface.co/papers/2401.02669
|
| * YaRN - aforementioned efficient RoPE extension
| https://huggingface.co/papers/2309.00071
|
| You could imagine combining a few of these together to
| basically "solve" the context issue while largely
| training for shorter context length.
|
| There are of course some exciting new alternative
| architectures, notably Mamba
| https://huggingface.co/papers/2312.00752 and Megabyte
| https://huggingface.co/papers/2305.07185 that can
| efficiently process up to 1M tokens...
| EmilStenstrom wrote:
| Thank you!
| pandemic_region wrote:
| Did you just paste that into an LLM and asked it to create a
| glossary? :-P
|
| (but seriously: Thanks !)
| coldtea wrote:
| Emil didn't, but I did (and yeah, it's useless):
|
| Mixtral-8x7: This appears to be a technical term, possibly
| referring to a software, framework, or technology. Its
| exact nature is unclear without additional context.
|
| Dolphin locally: "Dolphin" could refer to a software tool
| or framework. The term "locally" implies it is being run on
| a local machine or server rather than a remote or cloud-
| based environment.
|
| 3.5-turbo: This could be a version name or a type of
| technology. "Turbo" often implies enhanced or accelerated
| performance.
|
| 4-series preview: Likely a version or iteration of a
| software or technology that is still in a preview or beta
| stage, indicating it's not the final release.
|
| Emacs: A popular text editor used often by programmers and
| developers. Known for its extensibility and customization.
|
| Mistral Medium: This might be a product or service,
| possibly in the realm of technology or AI. The specific
| nature is not clear from the text alone.
|
| Perplexity: Likely a company or service provider, possibly
| in the field of AI or technology. They seem to have a
| partnership offering involving Mistral Medium.
|
| RenTech of AI: RenTech, or Renaissance Technologies, is a
| well-known quantitative hedge fund. The term here is used
| metaphorically to suggest a pioneering or leading position
| in the AI field.
|
| DPO, Alibi, and sliding window: These are likely technical
| concepts or tools in the field being discussed. Without
| additional context, their exact meanings are unclear.
|
| Modern mixtures: This could refer to modern algorithms,
| techniques, or technologies in the field of AI or data
| science.
|
| TheBloke: This could be a reference to an individual, a
| role within a community, or a specific entity known for
| certain expertise or actions.
|
| 4070 Super: This seems like a model name, possibly of a
| computer hardware component like a GPU (Graphics Processing
| Unit).
|
| MSFT: An abbreviation for Microsoft Corporation.
|
| On-premise: Refers to software or services that are
| operated from the physical premises of the organization, as
| opposed to being hosted on the cloud.
| aftoprokrustes wrote:
| This is actually hilarious. It looks like a student who
| did not learn for the exam but still tries their best to
| scratch a point or two by filling the page with as many
| reasonnable sounding statements (a.k.a. "bullshit") as
| they can. Not that I expect more of a language model, no
| matter how "large".
| siva7 wrote:
| This makes it actually more human (as in this is how a
| real student would have reacted) and therefore AGI-like
| than i would have anticipated.
| PoignardAzur wrote:
| > _Not that I expect more of a language model, no matter
| how "large"._
|
| That's a weirdly dismissive statement. The fundamental
| problem is that a lot of these terms are from after the
| AI's cutoff point. It's perfectly able to handle terms
| like "Emacs", "RenTech" or "MSFT", and it can guess that
| "4070 Series" probably refers to a GPU.
|
| ChatGPT in a few years will probably be perfectly able to
| produce the correct answers.
|
| (Actually, ChatGPT consistently claims its current cutoff
| is April 2023, which should let it give a better answer,
| so I'm taking a few points off my explanation. But it
| still feels like the most probable one.)
| fragmede wrote:
| GPT4 is able to look terms up on the Internet if you ask,
| and will give you a list of specs on it, with a cite so
| you know it's not hallucinating them.
|
| "4070 Super": https://chat.openai.com/share/0aac7d90-de65
| -41d0-9567-8e56a0...
|
| "Mixtral-8x7": https://chat.openai.com/share/8091ac61-d60
| 2-414c-bdce-41b49e...
| vincentrolfs wrote:
| I asked ChatGPT to rewrite the original post using your
| glossary, which worked well:
|
| I've set up my system to use several AI models: the open-
| source Mixtral-8x7, Dolphin (an uncensored version of
| Mixtral), GPT-3.5 Turbo (a cost-effective option from
| OpenAI), and the latest GPT-4 Turbo from OpenAI. I can easily
| compare their performances in Emacs. Lately, I've noticed
| that GPT-4 Turbo is starting to outperform Mixtral-8x7, which
| wasn't the case until recently. However, I'm still waiting
| for access to Mistral-Medium, a new, more exclusive AI model
| by Mistral AI.
|
| I just found out that Perplexity, a new search engine
| competing with Google, is offering free access to Mistral
| Medium through their partnership. This makes me question Sam
| Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, and his claims about their
| technology. Mistral Medium seems superior to GPT-4 Turbo, and
| if it were expensive to run, Perplexity wouldn't be giving it
| away.
|
| I'm guessing that Mistral AI could become the next
| Renaissance Technologies (a hedge fund known for its
| innovative strategies) of the AI world. Techniques like
| Direct Preference Optimization, which improves smaller
| models, along with other advancements like the Alibi Python
| library for understanding AI models, sliding windows for
| longer text sequences, and combining multiple models, are now
| well understood. The real opportunity lies in quickly
| adapting these new technologies before they become mainstream
| and affordable.
|
| Big companies are cautious about adopting these new
| structures, remembering their dependence on Microsoft in the
| past. They're willing to experiment with AI until it becomes
| both affordable and easy to use in-house.
|
| It's sad to see the old technology go, but exciting to see
| the new advancements take its place.
| benreesman wrote:
| The GP did a great job summarizing the original post and
| defining a lot of cryptic jargon that I didn't anticipate
| would generate so much conversation, and I'd wager did it
| without a blind LLM shot (though these days even that is
| possible). I endorse that summary without reservation.
|
| And the above is substantially what I said, and undoubtedly
| would find a better reception with a larger audience.
|
| I'm troubled though, because I already sanitize what I
| write and say by passing it through a GPT-style "alignment"
| filter in almost every interaction precisely because I know
| my authentic self is brash/abrasive/neuro-atypical/etc. and
| it's more advantageous to talk like ChatGPT than to talk
| like Ben. Hacker News is one of a few places real or
| digital where I just talk like Ben.
|
| Maybe I'm an outlier in how different I am and it'll just
| be me that is sad to start talking like GPT, and maybe the
| net change in society will just be a little drift towards
| brighter and more diplomatic.
|
| But either way it's kind of a drag: either passing me and
| people like me through a filter is net positive, which
| would suck but I guess I'd get on board, or it actually
| edits out contrarian originality in toto, in which case the
| world goes all Huxley really fast.
|
| Door #3 where we net people out on accomplishment and
| optics with a strong tilt towards accomplishment doesn't
| seem to be on the menu.
| cgeier wrote:
| I would have said there is no problem with your style
| (nothing brash/abrasive), but you used _a lot_ of jargon,
| that people who are not very deep into LLMs (large
| language models) would not understand. Interests of
| hackernews visitors are very diverse, not everyone
| follows LLMs that closely.
| smeej wrote:
| This was my take exactly. I read the original and
| thought, "Wow, this sounds like really interesting stuff
| this poster us excited about. I wish I knew what the
| terms meant, though. I'll have to come back to this when
| I have more time and look up the terms."
|
| I was pleasantly surprised to find a glossary immediately
| following, which tells me it wasn't the tone of the post,
| but the shorthand terminology that was unfamiliar to me
| that was my issue.
|
| I think writing in "Ben's voice" is great. There are just
| going to be times when your audience needs a bit more
| context around your terminology, that's all.
| a_petrov wrote:
| I used to struggle a lot in communication for talking to
| people in the authentic self way you just described.
| Being too direct and telling my point of view in such a
| way has caused tension with family, colleagues and the
| girlfriend.
|
| The moment I change the way I talk and say instead of
| "That's bullshit, let's move away from it" to "That could
| be a challenging and rewarding experience", and I can
| already see the advantage.
|
| I rather like to talk the way I want, but I see it as
| challenging and not that rewarding as people seem to get
| more sensitive. That made me wonder if the way GPT-style
| chatbots communicate with humans would make humans expect
| the same way of communication from other humans.
| zemvpferreira wrote:
| Porque no los dos? While I truly appreciate your OP and
| could grok it even though I don't know the tech, the
| summary and rewrites saved me a ton of googling. I hope
| one day we have a 'see vernacular/original' button for
| all thought and communication so people can choose what
| level to engage in without the author having to change
| their communication style. Translation for personal
| dialects, so to say.
| mwigdahl wrote:
| I think the only thing you really need to do is unpack
| your jargon so people who aren't exactly you can
| understand what you're saying. Even on this site, there
| are folks with all sorts of different experiences and
| cultural context, so shortcuts in phrasing don't always
| come across clearly.
|
| For example, "in which case the world goes all Huxley
| really fast." "Huxley" apparently means something to you.
| Would it mean anything at all to someone who hasn't read
| any Aldous Huxley? As someone who _has_, I still had to
| think about it -- a lot. I assumed you're referring to a
| work of his literature rather than something he actually
| believed, as Huxley's beliefs about the world certainly
| had a place for the contrarian and the original.
|
| Further, I assume you are referring to his most well-
| known work, _Brave New World_, rather than (for example)
| _Island_, so you're not saying that people would be
| eating a lot of psychedelic mushrooms and living together
| in tolerant peace and love.
|
| I don't at all think you need to sound like GPT to be a
| successful communicator, but you will be more successful
| the more you consider your audience and avoid
| constructions that they're unlikely to be able to
| understand without research.
| bart_spoon wrote:
| People aren't passing you through a filter because you
| are brash and undiplomatic and "unaligned", it's because
| your communication style is borderline incomprehensible.
| engcoach wrote:
| FWIW I found it comprehensible just jargon-laden
| boringg wrote:
| Real Ben >> GPT Ben. However if you are going to the
| wider world you problem need to self varnish a lot (i
| know i would have to). You are fine in here!
|
| What you are alluding to is quite similar to the that
| "instagram face" that everyone pursues and self filters
| for except its more about your communication and
| thoughts. Also the argument that you need to reach a
| wider audience i dint think isn't necessary unless you
| want the wider audience to comment and engage.
|
| The internet is the great homogenizer soon(ish) we will
| be uniform.
| yashap wrote:
| Personally I had no problem with your post being too
| abrasive or anything like that, it was just hard to
| understand because it was full of jargon.
| ComplexSystems wrote:
| Thank you! Amazing how difficult it is to keep up with all
| of the new jargon given how fast it's evolved. I had no
| idea that mistral-medium was so great.
| spuz wrote:
| As someone who follows AI pretty closely, this was
| unbelievably helpful in understanding the parent post. It's
| crazy how much there is to keep on top of if you don't want
| to fall behind everything that is going on in AI at the
| moment.
| hmottestad wrote:
| Thanks for this. I was initially wondering what this new GPT
| 4.5 model was and if I had somehow missed out on something
| big.
| kidsil wrote:
| I understand some of these words.
|
| In all seriousness, are self hosted GPT alternatives really
| viable?
| eurekin wrote:
| Care to share, what are you using it for?
|
| I'm curious, because I'm gathering some usecases; so that I
| could share that internally in the company to provide better
| education on, what LLMs do and how they work.
| coldtea wrote:
| Not sure what all the fuss is about about the
| incomprehensibility of this. It's a densely packed comment,
| information wise, and expects familiarity with the field, but
| there's nothing really that obscure about it.
|
| I might not know half of the references like "sama" or
| "TheBloke", but I could understand the context of them all.
| Like:
|
| "the lag between some new edge and TheBloke having it quantized
| for a Mac Mini or 4070 Super,"
|
| Not sure who TheBloke is, but he obviously means "between some
| new (cutting) edge AI model, and some person scaling it to run
| on smaller computers with less memory".
|
| Similarly, not sure who Perplexity is, but "Until I realized
| Perplexity will give you a decent amount of Mistral Medium for
| free through their partnership" basically spells out that
| they're a service provider of some kind, that they have
| partnered with Mistral AI, and you get to use the Mistral
| Medium model through opening a free account on Perplexity.
|
| I mean, duh!
| megablast wrote:
| What a non sensical statement
| pama wrote:
| Thanks for the insights. What is your typical Emacs workflow
| for using and comparing the models?
| benreesman wrote:
| I'm running custom stuff that I plan/hope to MIT soon, but
| `gptel` is killer and I've substantially plagiarized feature-
| wise it in my own dots. (I don't intend to release anything
| under a more permissive license that it was published under,
| merely that it sets the bar on a good interface and I plan to
| launch nothing less capable).
| no_streams wrote:
| I'm curious about your workflow including all of these, is it
| only for your curiousity? Do you switch between them for
| specific tasks, or even run them in parallel for some purpose?
|
| Also, is anyone aware of a service that supplies API endpoints
| for dolphin? I'd love to experiment with it, but running
| locally exceeds my budget.
| brcmthrowaway wrote:
| If anyone understands this post you are worth a million
| dollars. Get that bag!
| oflordal wrote:
| Did anyone evaluate this compared to using api access through an
| external gui (i.e. continue.dev). For software dev did the cost
| end up higher? I am thinking this is can be more convenient (and
| I suppose engineers can more easily use it outside work as a
| perk). Given practical use across a team will vary you get a
| lower price when using api and perhaps additional opportunity for
| scripted use.
| joshspankit wrote:
| Are there any new OpenAI opt in links that we might be missing?
|
| Last one I remember was OpenAI GPT-4 API
| saliagato wrote:
| no
| sgammon wrote:
| Woah. Bold move.
| msmenardi wrote:
| they don't want you to be able to communicate with your teammates
| without their knowledge
| singularity2001 wrote:
| Also part of the announcement:
|
| The GPT store
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38941158
|
| https://chat.openai.com/gpts
| realusername wrote:
| I'm not too suprised by the move, it's a classic segmentation
| steategy but I was surprised how poorly the example screenshots
| they gave reflect on the product.
|
| You have one non actionable marketing answer, a growth graph
| created without axis (what are people going to do with that?) and
| a Python file which would be easier just to run to get the error.
|
| That kind of reinforce my belief that those AI tools aren't
| without their learning curves despite being in plain English.
| padjo wrote:
| The Engineering example is absolutely hilarious. Sure, I'm going
| to copy paste my code into an AI assistant to ask it about a bug
| that a linter would spot in realtime as I wrote the code.
| callalex wrote:
| I agree with you completely, but the target audience of people
| who will do such a thing have no clue what a linter, lexer, or
| parser are. Maybe even a compiler. And that audience is much
| larger than us folks at the ripe old age of 25+ even realize.
| shrx wrote:
| Could a moderator change the "Teams" in the title to lowercase
| (as it is in the article)? Capitalizing Teams misleadingly
| implies it's regarding Microsoft's chat platform.
| cald0s wrote:
| But that's how headlines work
| pests wrote:
| I agree, but why didn't the original article do it? Or did
| they see the potential for confusion and deliberately not?
|
| When a common word is a product / brand, how do you use that
| word in a title without bringing up associations with that
| product / brand?
|
| Isn't the guidelines to submit the title as-is, no
| editorializing?
| dspillett wrote:
| _> but why didn 't the original article do it?_
|
| Local style guide says not to capitalise headlines,
| presumably.
|
| Though you are right, the general rule here is not to
| change headlines and that should probably apply to style as
| well as wording. Looking at other posts on the main list
| there seems to be a mix as the original styles (sentence
| cap, all words capitalised, all but articles, ...) have
| been kept.
| midasuni wrote:
| You could argue that Microsoft's claim on common words
| (Teams, Windows) is the problem here.
| pests wrote:
| You could, but I think that ship has sailed.
| justincormack wrote:
| The UK stopped capitalising every word in headlines back in
| the 1980s maybe earlier. It looks much nicer and is more
| readable. The bold tells you it is a geadline. US newspaper
| graphic design seems very retro to me.
| mmh0000 wrote:
| It really depends on what style guide a news organization
| follows.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_case
| F7F7F7 wrote:
| The majority of designers I know prefer tile case. Whether
| it's a printed poster or in-app UI.
|
| Look no further than "Add Comment" at the top of this page.
| nathancahill wrote:
| What? It says "add comment"
| midasuni wrote:
| The page title is "ChatGPT for teams"
| lysecret wrote:
| Ok, big noob question I never understood how to capitalize
| headlines correctly. Can someone eli5 ?:D
| rvense wrote:
| In English, the most common convention is to capitalize every
| word, or every word except small ones like articles and
| prepositions (the, of, for).
| justincormack wrote:
| In US English. Not in the UK.
| closewith wrote:
| That's region-specific. Certainly not a feature of the
| language.
| throwaway22045 wrote:
| It's a feature of the language dialect.
| slhck wrote:
| Generally, capitalize longer words. But this really depends
| on the style book you choose to follow (MLA, APA, CMOS). See:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_case
| dabber wrote:
| > I never understood how to capitalize headlines correctly.
| Can someone eli5 ?:D
|
| On HN, copy/paste is usually a safe bet (with a few
| exceptions): https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| If you mean in general, Wikipedia sums it up pretty well:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_case
| codetrotter wrote:
| > On HN, copy/paste is usually a safe bet
|
| Also note that HN automatically applies the capitalization
| rules to submitted headlines. So you don't really need to
| do any changes to the capitalization yourself when you
| submit.
|
| And for understanding how the rules work, I agree that
| Wikipedia article is good.
| tlamponi wrote:
| See also this nice title-case converter web app:
| https://titlecaseconverter.com/
| mFixman wrote:
| Like a big chunk of the language, English capitalisation is
| nonsensical and descriptivist. Different organisations have
| different rules just like different audiences have different
| expectations, and there is no single way to capitalise words
| in titles.
|
| I'm with the parent comment on this one: for this particular
| headline it makes sense to lowercase "teams", since the HN
| audience will tend to correlate the uppercase version with
| the incorrect meaning of the headline.
| lwhi wrote:
| I disagree.
|
| We shouldn't assume a basic sentence capitalised word refers to
| a product.
|
| If a reference to a product is intended, we should clarify that
| association some other way; i.e. MS Teams.
| tgv wrote:
| The reading process is automatic. It's quite likely that
| capitalized "Teams" is read by may as the product name. And
| it's reasonable, because in most daily contexts, "teams"
| refers to actual "teams" and "Teams" refers to the product.
| Nobody (including you) is going to teach them to stop doing
| that. Adapting a rather dumb capitalization rule is a lot
| easier.
|
| I do agree that editors should read their topics critically
| and add disambiguating text (if possible and permitted).
| codetrotter wrote:
| Teams is a very generic product name. Microsoft can live
| with the consequences of that.
|
| When I read the headline, I was not thinking of MS Teams.
| Because I only use MS Teams a few rare times a year. Mainly
| I use Zoom.
|
| But even if OpenAI had an article that with the rules of
| headline capitalization of HN ended up reading "Dall-E adds
| Zoom Feature" I would have imagined that it was about being
| able to zoom into pictures. Not automatically assumed that
| it had anything to do with Zoom. Even though I use Zoom
| almost every day.
| gbalduzzi wrote:
| > Teams is a very generic product name. Microsoft can
| live with the consequences of that.
|
| Quite the contrary, Microsoft earns free advertisement
| from this. The problem is for the people that
| misunderstand the heading, not for Microsoft
|
| Ok, you would understand it correctly even the Zoom
| example. So?
|
| Heading should be optimized for the most possible amount
| of people, there is a clear possibility that a lot of
| people misunderstand the title, so why not simply edit
| it? In that case neither you nor anyone else would
| understand something wrong
| F7F7F7 wrote:
| The vast majority of people aren't going to make the
| association. Even in the HN demo.
|
| I think people are vastly over estimating Microsoft's
| ownership over 'Teams'. Even within a tech context.
|
| Plus, everything we've seen from Microsoft in their
| partnership with OpenAI has been Co-Pilot. Which is why I
| use MS Teams daily and did not make the connection.
| jorvi wrote:
| You are wrong and the vast majority of people _are_
| making the association.
|
| I showed the title to five colleagues and all of them
| assumed it referred to Teams the product. Not to mention
| the overwhelming majority of people in these threads.
| IlliOnato wrote:
| Well, perhaps they meant "vast majority of people that
| count", which for them includes F7F7F7, F7F7F7, and of
| course F7F7F7! :-)
| IlliOnato wrote:
| How do you know about "vast majority of people"? Did you
| run a survey?
|
| I for one also thought it was Microsoft Teams in the
| heading.
|
| If a heading misleads even a fraction of readership, for
| no apparent reason (what is the benefit of having a title
| in Title Case?), maybe it's better that the heading is
| changed, no?
| manojlds wrote:
| Should do the same for Apple?
| jasode wrote:
| _> We shouldn't assume a basic sentence capitalised word
| refers to a product._
|
| What's happening is that lowercase _" sentence case"_ titles
| have become more popular and normalized so repeated exposure
| to that style can cause a subconscious heuristic of
| "Capitalized letter signifies a Brand Name or Proper Noun".
| You can try to _advise_ people not to assume that but it
| doesn 't change the type of "sentence case" titles people are
| now repeatedly exposed to.
|
| The New York Times still uses "Title Case" but a lot of other
| newspapers switched to lowercase sentence case. Washington
| Post switched in 2009. And Los Angeles Times, The Boston
| Globe, the Chicago Tribune, the San Francisco Chronicle,
| Philadelphia Inquirer, etc all followed.
|
| Other popular websites with lowercase titles include Vox,
| ArsTechnica, TechCrunch, etc.
| yamakadi wrote:
| Given how Microsoft has been putting OpenAI models all over
| their products, I was 100% certain the title referred to
| including ChatGPT in Microsoft Teams and only surprised it
| wasn't called Co-Pilot for Teams.
|
| Unfortunately, I don't think I'm the only one.
| nerdponx wrote:
| I've preferred it ever since I learned the APA reference
| format, which uses it.
| KolenCh wrote:
| Why should the sentence be capitalized in the first place? A
| quick scan on other submissions seems to indicate it is not
| true, at least for longer sentence. Why should a shorter
| sentence be then?
|
| Claiming it is a title wouldn't win the argument either. As
| it is not a rule that titles must have title casing. Both
| (title case vs first letter capital only) are valid
| typography of a title in English.
| Frost1x wrote:
| >We shouldn't assume a basic sentence capitalised word refers
| to a product.
|
| We shouldn't but many of us do. As a title word, there's
| ambiguity if it's a proper noun or not given title styling.
| Given the context in this case (HN, OpenAI, ChatGPT) it was
| pretty difficult for my brain to not assume it was referring
| to Microsoft Teams so it baited me in, perhaps
| unintentionally. I'm not too upset about it because I knew
| that going in but none the less, a quick read of the title
| should make it obvious to call it "ChatGPT for Collaboration"
| or something of that nature.
| F7F7F7 wrote:
| When is the last time Microsoft released an AI product that
| wasn't branded as Co-Pilot?
| throwaway13623 wrote:
| In this case the original title is "ChatGPT for teams", so
| the headline was actually editorialized when it was
| submitted, which is discouraged by HN guidelines.
|
| Normally it would be ok to capitallize words to match what
| many other US publications use, but this capitalization
| introduces confusion. I can only speak for myself, but I made
| the assumption that this was an integration with MS Teams.
| This would have been avoided if the original title was kept.
| randomdata wrote:
| _> I made the assumption that this was an integration with
| MS Teams._
|
| "ChatGPT for Microsoft Teams", marketed under the name
| Copilot, has been a Microsoft Teams feature for a while.
| What new thing did you expect when you read this?
| throwaway13623 wrote:
| I don't follow the news closely, so I was not aware that
| Copilot is based on ChatGPT or that MS had already
| integrated Copilot with Teams.
| IlliOnato wrote:
| Title case in unavoidably mentally taxing. It's trivial to
| convert sentence case to title case, but highly non-trivial
| in general to convert title case to sentence case (I know,
| I write code to do this :-)) To do it right, context, or
| even general intelligence is required. Basically,
| converting to Title Case looses information
| (capitalization) that can be important.
|
| Title case was invented when there were much limited
| typographical options than now, to emphasize, well, titles.
| On a web page, there are so many better ways to do it,
| there is no reason to preserve the archaic convention.
|
| To my eye it does not even look that nice...
| bottled_poe wrote:
| We shouldn't, but we do. Get over it and accept reality.
| outside415 wrote:
| I thought it was referring to MS teams initially too.
| sharken wrote:
| Same here. Using the correct lowercase word "teams" would
| enable everyone to focus on the product.
|
| Anything else is just wasting time.
| hammock wrote:
| We shouldn't. However a style guide that requires Title Case
| for a digital element that is very clearly a title (made
| clear by the various web design in which it appears) is
| outdated, and sentence case is more appropriate
| ddano wrote:
| Or maybe you are spreading the anti ai ai club movement >
| https://twitter.com/daniel_nguyenx/status/174508587502795617...
| :D
|
| j/k but finding it pretty funny these days that more and more
| people are switching to lowercase, assuming it started from
| this @sama tweet:
| https://twitter.com/sama/status/1735123080564167048
| cameronh90 wrote:
| Maybe in the AI Twittersphere it started with sama, but it's
| been becoming common in Gen Z culture for a few years now. If
| you look up popular bands at the moment, you'll find a decent
| chunk of them only use lowercase in their band and song
| names.
| ddano wrote:
| It is a weird trend.
| wholinator2 wrote:
| The phone only auto capitalizes the first letter of a
| sentence. If you end up changing it sometimes it doesn't
| get replaced with a capital. If you get frustrated with
| autocorrect features, often modern phones don't allow you
| to select which features to turn off and you're forced to
| turn everything off, at least that's how it was during
| the time i learned to type with the phone. I'm not gen z
| but I'd say it has a lot to do with it being much more
| cumbersome to capitalize a letter on the phone than the
| keyboard.
|
| Plus, there's also the _aesthetic_ , for a while we did
| it out of angst and to show we weren't all that wrapped
| up in the modern sensibilities. It seems like the
| situation as society moved forward may have only gotten
| worse for this.
|
| If you're confused about something gen z does, it's
| either:
|
| 1) they're teenagers and grew up with phones, get with
| the times old man
|
| 2) a large corporation that didn't have a monolopy on
| communication (maybe basically everything else too) when
| you grew up now does and its an artifact of being forced
| to grow in that world
|
| 3) global warming is scary as shit, no one in power seems
| to give a shit, economies are crumbling, we're
| temporarily losing the worldwide battle for continued
| democracy, why wont they stop the war, school shootings,
| nuclear destruction isn't too close but doesn't look like
| it's getting farther away, etc etc etc. Basically, "have
| you seen the world? Why are you even trying, let alone
| the teenagers today?" type thing.
| ddano wrote:
| You can disable the option on phones to auto capitalize.
|
| Again, my observation here is not that "TVs should stay
| grayscale" but that this lowercase movement is now being
| used to "fight the AI generated content" which I find
| pretty funny because it makes no sense. You can tell
| ChatGPT to write in lowercase.
|
| It especially got traction after @sama's tweet that had
| no intention to associate it with non-GPT content, but
| just weirdly flexed that he types in lowercase.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| It's been around a while[0].
|
| [0] https://albumartexchange.com/coverart/gallery/ra/radioh
| ead_t...
| ddano wrote:
| Yeah, but not in this context. Now it is being used with
| the anti-AI movement
| rsaz wrote:
| I'm in gen z and usually type in all lowercase on my phone
| because I have autocorrect turned off and capitalizing the
| letters would be more work. Generally though, the aesthetic
| has become more associated with girls, I suspect because of
| women popular among girls being early to/pioneering the
| trend (namely Emma Chamberlain's all lowercase youtube
| video titles and Rupi Kaur's poetry books being entirely
| lowercase)
| oceanplexian wrote:
| E.E. Cummings has all these Gen-Z hipsters beat by about
| a century give or take.
| seydor wrote:
| All this time i thought it was a microsoft feature, which is
| now confusing, won't microsoft integrate basically GPT4 in
| Teams?
| hmottestad wrote:
| I also assumed that this was ChatGPT for MS Teams. The title
| that the webpage uses is "ChatGPT for teams" and I believe that
| HN tries to use the titles from the linked page verbatim.
| throwup238 wrote:
| HN autocapitalizes titles based on a standard English
| guideline (Chicago probably).
| diggan wrote:
| The title on the submitted webpage is "ChatGPT Team",
| singular.
| jasode wrote:
| _> The title on the submitted webpage is "ChatGPT Team",
| singular._
|
| Your reply is adding more confusion.
|
| The _" ChatGPT Team"_ is the title of the webpage from a
| user comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38942936
|
| (The capitalized "Team" is part of a Branded Product Name.)
|
| The _" ChatGPT for teams"_ (lowercase _' t'_) is the actual
| original title of the submitted webpage for the whole
| thread: https://openai.com/chatgpt/team
|
| (The lowercase "teams" is a generic noun to describe the
| intended users.)
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| >"ChatGPT Team" is the title of the webpage from a user
| comment... "ChatGPT for teams" (lowercase 't') is the
| actual original title of the submitted webpage
|
| Sorry, I think you're the one adding confusion.
|
| "ChatGPT for teams" is not the title of the submitted
| webpage. It's the heading of the _article_ on that page,
| but the actual title, as shown in the tab strip and
| defined in the html header, is "ChatGPT Team":
| view-source:https://openai.com/chatgpt/team
| <meta property="og:title" content="ChatGPT Team">
|
| Hacker New's code uses the _html title element_ (which in
| this case is actually a meta element) to automatically
| title submissions.
| jasode wrote:
| _> It's the heading of the article on that page, but the
| actual title, _
|
| Yes, I understand that but 99% in this thread talking
| about _" title"_ is the article's headline(title) that
| has the word _" for"_ in it _" ChatGPT for teams"_ and
| not the HTML tags _< title>ChatGPT Team</title>_ or _<
| meta property="og:title">_
|
| In other words, people in this thread are not complaining
| about "ChatGPT Team" in the browser's tab title or
| confused by it. Instead, they're talking about the
| _other_ title _" ChatGPT for Teams"_ that was submitted
| and manually changed from lowercase 't' to uppercase 'T'
| and prominently visible at the top of this thread. That's
| the context of this meta discussion about confusing
| capitalization causing some readers to incorrectly assume
| the headline is about a new ChatGPT addon feature for MS
| Teams: (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-
| teams/group-chat-s...)
|
| The singular "Team" in product name _" ChatGPT Team"_
| doesn't cause the same confusion because Microsoft
| doesn't have a branded product called "Team". That's why
| citing _" <title>ChatGPT Team</title>"_ ... does not help
| clarify things and just adds more confusion to this
| thread.
|
| _> Hacker New's code uses the html title element (which
| in this case is actually a meta element) to automatically
| title submissions._
|
| Are you sure? In the past, HN commenters have been
| annoyed that the HN software _does not extract and parse_
| the HTML <title> element automatically and defers too
| much to the titles that submitters manually type in which
| often leads to editorialization and/or confusion.
| jug wrote:
| Yeah, same here. Regarding that, this is essentially that (same
| LLM and all) https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/microsoft-
| teams-blog/...
| riffic wrote:
| maybe Microsoft shouldn't have overloaded a generic word as a
| brand then.
| jksmith wrote:
| You'll own no words and be happy.
| randomdata wrote:
| Said chat platform explicitly calls itself "Microsoft Teams".
| You know that it is not being referred to because there is no
| mention of its name.
| beeboobaa wrote:
| Microsoft is the misleading one here for calling their generic
| chat platform "Teams".
|
| Are you also going to complain if someone releases a platform
| called "The"?
| hammock wrote:
| Someone call Apple. I've been hungry for a long time
| mvkel wrote:
| CEO will be the first job that AI replaces
| dizzydes wrote:
| OpenAI understand their tech lead isn't a sustainable moat, so
| are going for network effects. Similar to Slack Connect (shared
| channels).
| weatherlite wrote:
| I heard the no moat theory before and I don't get it. The open
| source models are about a year or two behind the latest ChatGPT
| in terms of quality. That means companies will always be
| willing to pay premium to use ChatGPT and not rely on open
| source. So even if/when Google and Apple (and perhaps Meta)
| catch up in terms of A.I quality, there's still so much money
| to be made for OpenAI. One interesting by product of late game
| capitalism like this is as more and more jobs get destroyed due
| to A.I, so will subscriptions. So it might be a mixed bag in
| the end for the tech giants if there's no real economy to buy
| the products anymore, but we're a long way from there.
| hackerlight wrote:
| I think no moat vs moat is a false dichotomy. They have a
| moat (better researchers and data) and are about to make it
| even better (network effects).
| phillipcarter wrote:
| Yeah, this is something I've been saying as well. Their true
| "moat" is their network of people who know and understand how
| to know use their tech.
| ttul wrote:
| It's the "we will make this so easy for you that you never
| want to switch" moat. Definitely akin to Slack, which also
| has the integration glue to keep you on their platform. Even
| though there are many Slack alternatives now that are really
| great, most companies on Slack will opt to stay there rather
| than invest in migrating.
| sholladay wrote:
| I want ChatGPT for Family.
|
| The free version gets a lot of use around here but the most
| powerful feature is the ability to search the web, which is only
| available to paid users. I pay $20/month for myself and I'd
| happily pay a bit more for the whole family, but not $20/month
| per person - it adds up. Family members end up asking to borrow
| my phone a lot to use it.
|
| Give me a 3-4 person plan that costs $30-$40/month. You're
| leaving money on the table!
| unnouinceput wrote:
| Can't you use the same account on multiple phones though? I
| thought this is a no brainer.
| lhnz wrote:
| This is probably correct but I'd prefer that family don't
| read the conversations I've had, as even if I'm not saying
| anything too private, it feels too intrusive (it'd be a bit
| like reading my inner thoughts).
| Zambyte wrote:
| It's interesting that you're so trusting of strangers
| knowing your inner thoughts (OpenAI) but not your family
| lhnz wrote:
| I don't want my family to know I spent 3 hours chatting
| about the Holy Roman Empire.
| Zambyte wrote:
| What would change if they knew?
| ics wrote:
| Too much discussion about the Holy Roman Empire over
| dinner? People talk to get things of their mind
| sometimes, not the infinite pursuit of conversation.
| Zambyte wrote:
| My point was not that they should talk about the Holy
| Roman Empire with their family, but that they shouldn't
| share information with strangers that they wouldn't share
| with their family.
|
| If you don't want your family to know something, you
| shouldn't tell it to OpenAI either.
| eganist wrote:
| > If you don't want your family to know something, you
| shouldn't tell it to OpenAI either.
|
| Yeah, I think this is an over reduction of personal
| privacy models, but can you tell me why you believe this?
| Zambyte wrote:
| The reason you wouldn't say something to someone is
| because you are afraid of the power that you give people
| along with that knowledge.
|
| Your family is in a a position of power, which is why it
| can be scary to share information with them. People at
| OpenAI are also at a position of power, but people who
| use their services seem to forget that, since they're
| talking to them through a computer that automatically
| responds.
| eganist wrote:
| Converging threads here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38956734
|
| tldr: power (or if you want, impact) is the linear
| dimension, likelihood adds a second dimension to the
| plane of trust.
| Zambyte wrote:
| In practice, likelyhood directly correlates with power.
| Perhaps there is causation (power corrupts?)
| eganist wrote:
| I need data on that. I haven't seen that in practice.
| not2b wrote:
| They would know that it was neither holy, nor Roman, nor
| an empire. Discuss.
| dev_tty01 wrote:
| Why the questions? It is no one else's business why they
| want that level of privacy. Is it your intent to convince
| them that they don't need privacy?
| Zambyte wrote:
| > Is it your intent to convince them that they don't need
| privacy?
|
| Quite the opposite actually. My intent is to shed light
| on the fact that sharing information with OpenAI is _not_
| private. And you should _not_ do that with information
| that you wouldn 't even share with people you trust.
| eganist wrote:
| > Quite the opposite actually. My intent is to shed light
| on the fact that sharing information with OpenAI is not
| private. And you should not do that with information that
| you wouldn't even share with people you trust.
|
| I'm not OP, but I think you're missing the point.
|
| Privacy and trust isn't really a 1D gradient, it's
| probably planar or even spatial if anything.
|
| Personally I'd be more willing to trust OpenAI with
| certain conversations because the blowback if it leaves
| _their_ control is different than if I have that same
| conversation with my best friend and it leaves my best
| friend 's control. The same premise underlies how
| patients can choose who to disclose their own health
| matters to, or choose who their providers can disclose
| to.
|
| Same reason behind why someone may be willing to post a
| relationship situation to r/relationship_advice and yet
| not talk about the same thing with family and friends.
| Zambyte wrote:
| > Same reason behind why someone may be willing to post a
| relationship situation to r/relationship_advice and yet
| not talk about the same thing with family and friends.
|
| I ask that you consider the people who use Reddit and the
| people who run Reddit independently. The people who use
| Reddit are not in a position of power over someone who
| asks for advice. The people who _run_ Reddit on the other
| hand, _are_ in a position of power to be able to
| emotionally manipulate the person who asked for advice.
| They can show you emotionally manipulative posts to keep
| your attention for longer. They can promote your post
| among people who are likely to respond in ways that keep
| you coming back.
|
| OpenAI has a similar position of power. That's why you
| shouldn't trust people at either of those companies with
| your private thoughts.
| eganist wrote:
| You're assuming power comes with an assumed guarantee of
| use. OpenAI has vast amounts of power with the data
| they're collecting, but the likelihood of OpenAI using it
| against any individual is small enough that an individual
| could consider it to be outside their threat model (I'm
| speaking using security language, but I doubt most people
| go so far as to threat model these interactions; it's
| mostly intuitive at this point).
|
| Your family has limited power in the grand scheme of
| things, but the likelihood that they may leverage what
| power you give them over you is much higher.
|
| The IRS has vast power _and_ is likely to use it against
| you, hence why tax fraud is usually a bad idea.
|
| Hence "planar" rather than linear.
| Zambyte wrote:
| > OpenAI has vast amounts of power with the data they're
| collecting, but the likelihood of OpenAI using it against
| any individual is small enough that an individual could
| consider it to be outside their threat model
|
| I think your use of the word "individual" is a bit weird
| here. I _absolutely_ find it likely that OpenAI is doing
| _individualized_ manipulation against _everyone_ who uses
| their systems. Maybe this would be more obvious if you
| replace OpenAI with something like Facebook or Youtube in
| your head.
|
| Just because they are using their power on many
| individuals doesn't mean that they are not using their
| power against you too.
| eganist wrote:
| > I think your use of the word "individual" is a bit
| weird here. I absolutely find it likely that OpenAI is
| doing individualized manipulation against everyone who
| uses their systems. Maybe this would be more obvious if
| you replace OpenAI with something like Facebook or
| Youtube in your head.
|
| > Just because they are using their power on many
| individuals doesn't mean that they are not using their
| power against you too.
|
| Yeah but at this point you're identifying individual
| risks and grasping at straws to justify manipulating*
| everyone's threat model. You can use that as your own
| justification, but everyone manages their own personal
| tolerance for different categories of risks differently.
|
| *Also, considering the published definition of
| manipulation is "to control or play upon by artful,
| unfair, or insidious means especially to one's own
| advantage," I think saying that "OpenAI is doing
| individualized manipulation against everyone who uses
| their systems" is an overreach that requires strong
| evidence. It's one thing if companies use dark UX
| patterns to encourage product spend, but I don't believe
| (from what I know) that OpenAI is at a point where they
| can intake the necessary data both from past prompt
| history and from other sites to do the personalized,
| individualized manipulation across future prompts and
| responses that you're suggesting they're likely doing.
|
| Considering your latest comment, I'm not sure this
| discussion is receiving the good faith it deserves
| anymore. We can part ways, it's fine.
| michaelt wrote:
| How could I look my wife in the eye, or expect my kids to
| grow up happy, if they knew their dad doesn't know how to
| use a regex to detect emojis in a string?
| Zambyte wrote:
| I hope there is more going on behind those eyes than not
| being a regex expert
| watwut wrote:
| Is that truly interesting? OP does not have to care about
| what AI think of him. OP does notnhave to care about
| accidentally offending or hurting AI either. Open does
| nor have to care about whether AI finds him silly or
| whatever.
|
| Normal humans care about all of those with their
| families.
| Zambyte wrote:
| AI is a tool controlled by people. In this case, people
| who are not OP.
| unnouinceput wrote:
| Fine then. You don't want to find out your family the love
| you have for Roman empire. But you are a programmer, yes?
| So make an app that's just a wrapper for ChatGPT API's
| you're paying for and distribute that to your family
| phones. They'll use your OpenAI API key and each will have
| their own little ChatGPT 4 to query to. Have fun.
| siva7 wrote:
| I'm certain that they will soon release anything that promises
| more subscriptions. ChatGPT for Family, ChatGPT for Gov, and so
| on...
| whycome wrote:
| ChatGPT for Kids(tm)
| pyaamb wrote:
| The more I think of it the more I realize how enormous an
| impact this could have
| siva7 wrote:
| Hit me up so we can work on it :)
| groestl wrote:
| Can't wait for my 5 year old to start a sentence with
| "However, it's important to note that ..." ^^
| worldsayshi wrote:
| There seems to be a plethora of somewhat ChatGPT competitive
| alternatives that does search the web at this point though.
| Maybe try phind.com?
|
| (Although I haven't yet myself tried any alternative that is
| clearly on par with ChatGPT 4)
| hmottestad wrote:
| I haven't found the web search feature particularly useful or
| helpful. Far too many sites are blocking the ChatGPT bot. I
| also find that ChatGPT isn't getting any better search results
| that I would if I searched for something myself. Quality of the
| results varies a lot too, and ChatGPT doesn't really seem to be
| able to distinguish between high quality content and not so
| high quality content.
|
| For software development I find that Phind is pretty good at
| combining search results with GPT-4 in a way that increases the
| quality of the result.
|
| Maybe OpenAI can convince the Bing team to index everything
| using their embeddings. If ChatGPT could also read the text
| directly from Bind instead of having to "surf the web" it would
| be able to consume several search results at the same time. In
| the future I could even see Bing et al. running an LLM over all
| text when indexing a page to extract info and stats like a
| summary, keywords, truthfulness, usefulness, etc.
| osigurdson wrote:
| I feel that LLMs have the potential to reorganize the web.
| Instead of being ad sponsored, raw, high quality data will be
| priced and aggregated.
| freedomben wrote:
| Same experience. 90% of the time I ask it to summarize
| something, it can't because it's blocked. At least it has the
| decency to tell me that it's blocked rather than just failing
| (which is what Kagi does. Love Kagi, but that's a minor
| improvement they could make).
|
| This is where I suspect Bard is going to be an absolute beast
| of a product. Ability to quickly and thoroughly consume a
| bunch of hits and find the best and summarize and such is
| something uniquely able for Google (and increasingly, Kagi)
| lhl wrote:
| ChatGPT's web search is interminably slow and I've added to
| my custom prompt to _not_ do web searches unless explicitly
| asked. However, I 'd give Perplexity.ai a try - I've found it
| to be incredibly fast and useful (funnily enough, they
| largely also use Bing for search retrieval results) and if
| you pay for Pro (which I do now), you can also use GPT-4 for
| generating responses.
| px43 wrote:
| I have a custom GPT for telling my 3 year old bedtime stories.
| It's super cute to listen to the two of them collaborate back
| and forth where my kid will add new characters (friends from
| school, or stuffed animals) and new wacky twists to their
| adventures, and the storyteller GPT will come up with a new
| revised version.
|
| It would be pretty rad if she could just have the app on her
| tablet with a family plan. She doesn't use it quite enough to
| justify getting her own subscription, but especially if we
| could share GPTs across devices, so she gets the ones I make
| for her, but doesn't get flooded with my work or research
| related GPTs.
| krzyk wrote:
| Oh, how does your 3 year old interact with GPT?
|
| BTW. I read once some person made automated generation of bed
| time stories (with childrens as the main characters) for his
| children using open AI API and speakers - I was quite amazed
| (not a thing I would do, but nice usage for gpt).
| milesskorpen wrote:
| There's pretty good voice input for chat gpt built into the
| iOS app.
| taylorhou wrote:
| ummm how do i get this? i've got a 5, 3, and 1 year old and
| would love this
| freediver wrote:
| At Kagi we plan to offer this for $20/mo and 6 family members
| included. You get both paid search (much better than openai
| bing) + AI (gpt-3.5-turbo/claude-instant). If you need gpt-4 it
| will be an optional $15/mo upgrade per family member.
| freedomben wrote:
| Nice, I'm looking forward to that! You guys have some pretty
| outstanding AI chops going. I've been really impressed!
| fouc wrote:
| is gpt-3.5-turbo/claude-instant better than the model that
| free tier of chatgpt uses? FWIW, from my testing
| dolphin-2.5-mixtral-8x7b was clearly better than free tier
| chatgpt.
| freediver wrote:
| We are closely following but with price of the models going
| down so rapidly it is really hard to justify capital
| investement in infra/people to maintain own stack globally
| at production quality (at this moment, will probably make a
| difference at scale larger than where Kagi is today).
| idiotsecant wrote:
| This is not a comment on the Kagi service, but more a comment
| on transitions in general. I have tried Kagi and I think it's
| great. I really want to use Kagi. I want to support Kagi. I
| have a mental stickynote that says 'start using Kagi on
| everything'. Every time I sit down to do some tasks it just
| falls to the bottom of the to-do pile because I feel like
| there's so many devices I now need to go through and update.
| Google really has a powerful advantage by bundling search in
| with the browser product. Isn't that what got microsoft into
| anti-trust trouble? How is it allowed?
| muhammadusman wrote:
| Start with your most used devices, I'm guessing your phone
| and your main computer. Then the others will slowly follow.
| Once I switched my phone's default search to Kagi, it made
| a huge difference because I search a lot more while being
| on the go and being able to get good, no-spam, no-ads
| filled search results can be an amazing experience.
| HanClinto wrote:
| I ran into this same issue. Finally took until Christmas
| break to have the mental space available. Switched to
| Firefox + Kagi, and very happy that I did.
| twodayslate wrote:
| Sounds great. Will that plan also have access to the Search
| API which is currently restricted to Teams plans?
| londons_explore wrote:
| Can't you just share the login details?
| cyanydeez wrote:
| I guarantee you they aren't leaving money on the table. they're
| running the same techno capitalist playbook.
|
| they want you hooked on apps, API, etc, before the real costs
| are brought in. they likely should be charging anywhere from
| 50-100$ depending on hours
| hospitalJail wrote:
| I'd love if I could use both my users at the same time to ask 2x
| questions.
|
| My wife uses chatgpt only a few times a day.
|
| I guess I need to 2x my browsers. I don't think this would work
| on the phone because I believe I need my browser open for chatgpt
| to continue its computations.
| rogerthis wrote:
| The pattern in the footer of Open AI pages is very annoying,
| unintelligent.
| bob1029 wrote:
| I think assistants / agents are going to be the big thing this
| year.
|
| I was working on something at the end November that was proposing
| competent PRs based upon request for work in a GH issue. I was
| about halfway through the first iteration of a prompt role that
| can review, approve and merge these PRs. End goal being a fully
| autonomous software factory wherein the humans simply communicate
| via GH issue threads. Will probably be back on this project by
| mid February or so. Really looking forward to it.
|
| Bigger, more useful context is all I think I really want at this
| point. The other primitives can be built pretty quickly on top of
| next token prediction once you know the recipes.
| wildpeaks wrote:
| Note that "no training on your data" is only for Team and
| Enterprise: https://openai.com/chatgpt/pricing
| dan_bez wrote:
| no training on API as well. I integrated it with Telegram over
| a year ago. For convenience rather than for cost savings. Been
| paying $2 per month on average ever since. And "No training on
| your data" is included.
| queueueue wrote:
| The API is not used for training purposes either.
| https://openai.com/enterprise-privacy
| londons_explore wrote:
| I suspect that user data isn't really valuable for training
| from anyway - the data will be full of users lying to the bot
| to try to manipulate it.
|
| But "we won't train from your data" is a powerful marketing
| line, and differentiator between classes of customer, even if
| they have no intention to train from the data of anyone.
| lhl wrote:
| You can make a privacy request for OpenAI to not train on your
| data here: https://privacy.openai.com/
|
| Alternatively, you could also use your own UI/API token (API
| calls aren't trained on). Chatbot UI just got a major update
| released and has nice things like folders, and chat search:
| https://github.com/mckaywrigley/chatbot-ui
| happytiger wrote:
| It should be opt out by default: not opt in.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Until people decide to boycott services where privacy is
| opt-in, nothing will change.
| happytiger wrote:
| That comment was immediately downvoted so there isn't
| much hope.
| econner wrote:
| Our team has an Enterprise account, but individuals cannot access
| GPT-4 through the chat.openai.com interface. With teams, do
| individuals get access to GPT-4 through that interface? Is our
| account just broken somehow?
|
| It seems odd we have enterprise but cannot access GPT-4 through
| the main ChatGPT interface.
| athyuttamre wrote:
| Do you have a ChatGPT Enterprise subscription purchased via our
| sales team? Or are you an API customer?
|
| The former should have GPT-4 access; if not, that's a bug, and
| I can look into it if you email me at atty@openai.com.
|
| The API and ChatGPT are separate products, and usage or credits
| purchased for the API do not provide paid ChatGPT access.
| DelightOne wrote:
| Sounds like an upgraded Plus with privacy, so 30$ for additional
| privacy compared to Plus.
| philip1209 wrote:
| RIP to all the startups this just killed.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Not your land, not your farm.
| wand3r wrote:
| Adjacent question, leaving aside value proposition. Do companies
| pay for 1000 seats like this? I didn't realize slack is $5 a user
| a month. Do they discount this for bulk, or are companies paying
| $5k/month $60k/yearly? These subscriptions must really add up.
|
| On All In, they discussed the leverage from AI tools and they
| probably also meant open source, but one of the companies just
| rolled their own instance of a big monthly SaaS product because
| it was such a big expense for the startup.
| marpstar wrote:
| This is why the price of "Enterprise" level of SaaS is always
| "Contact Us". Contract deals (i.e. "lock-in") are negotiated
| behind the scenes.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| I'm not really in the know, but I bet the enterprise discounts
| don't kick in until you're at the tens of thousands of users.
| In any case, $60k sounds like a lot as a top-line figure to
| some bean-counter, but all these sales pitches follow the same
| basic pattern:
|
| - This is an essential, best-in-class tool. You wouldn't deny
| your employees a laptop or a free lunch, would you?
|
| - $5/user/mo is a bargain compared to the hassle of
| building/hosting this yourself, punching holes in your firewall
| every time you need to receive a webhook, dealing with security
| and auth issues.
|
| - $60k is half the cost of someone you don't need to hire on
| your in-house IT team. Does it make sense yet?
| rrr_oh_man wrote:
| > I bet the enterprise discounts don't kick in until you're
| at the tens of thousands of users
|
| I'll take that bet ;) Not really sure about OpenAI, but you
| can _absolutely_ negotiate with almost any company.
| ren_engineer wrote:
| you'd be amazed at how many startups waste 100s of
| thousands(and millions) of dollars on buying seats for tools
| that barely anybody uses. Interest rate increases have made VC
| startups get a little smarter, but a few years ago it was
| really bad. Similar to how tons of startups burn huge amounts
| of money on AWS due to laziness
| Aeolun wrote:
| Yeah, companies really do. Once a year our company gets a
| really large bill (15k users, several services).
|
| The thing is those same people need to be paid, and that's a
| much (100x) larger bill, so the extra amount doesn't really
| signify.
| VincentEvans wrote:
| Here's an idea - ChatGPT app for Apple Carplay. Right now while
| driving i often do "hey siri" - but instead of carrying on a
| conversation where I can ask clarifying questions, I am most
| greeted with "i cannot show you this information while driving",
| because rather than summarizing the answer, Siri tries to show me
| some website link.
| Roritharr wrote:
| The way they purposefully made the Enterprise Plan so much better
| than the Teams plan is genius, the pressure on Enterprises to
| "just do the right thing" is pretty heavy here, I'd bet this will
| make them more than billion before the year is over.
| happytiger wrote:
| So basically only companies don't get spied on now? Even paid
| accounts are subject to data collection by default?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-01-11 23:01 UTC)